Academic Freedom

 Posted by  Science  5 Responses »
Oct 182007
 

Watson, a nobel Prize winner who in conjunction with Crick first understood the nature of DNA, recently incited a storm of controversy by insinuating that different racial groups had different levels of intelligence. To start, I don’t agree with his statements. I’ve read into the genetics of race, and teach classes on intelligence and psychometric testing, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that this isn’t the case. For example, while there are differences in IQ tests based on race, these differences can be made to disappear by simply persuading participants that what they’re taking isn’t an IQ test. This can’t be predicted by a genetic difference hypothesis.
But the point of this post isn’t to discuss race and intelligence. Its to discuss academic freedom. In response to Watson’s comments, a minority rights interest group released the following statement “It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint.”

Legal complaint? Seriously? How politically correct have we gotten as a society that when a scientist puts forth a hypothesis that we disagree with, rather than trying to empirically demonstrate the hypothesis to be false, we instead go to the legal system. The point of such a suit is to chill science. To intimidate scientists into only pursuing research that fits with a particular political agenda. This would lead us to the development of policy based on “evidence” that isn’t really evidence because we couldn’t genuinely investigate the issue. How can we do good research on race issues, and develop coherent policy on race relations, if we can’t engage in the full spectrum of ideas? The place to fight these claims isn’t the courtroom, its the lab. That people are trying to stifle academic freedom in the name of political correctness annoys me to no end.

Vaccinations

 Posted by  Healthcare, Science, The Media  No Responses »
Oct 172007
 

So far as I can tell, there is absolutely no evidence that vaccines have any link to autism in children. The CDC has issued a report reviewing the evidence and has found no connection between MMR vaccines and autism. A similar report was issued by the Institute of Medicine, rejecting any notion of a link. Nonetheless, there are a number of people who strongly believe that MMR vaccines and autism are related, and this gets substantial media coverage of anecdotal cases of children showing symptoms after being vaccinated. There is a very nice rebuttal of that argument here, which notes that MMR vaccines are usually at about 12 months of age, and autism symptoms (even in the absence of vaccinations) are first observed only a few months later. This coincidental timing can lead to anecdotes that look causal, especially since the media keeps reporting on the topic. Even though in empirical studies, no hint of a link has ever surfaced.
However, lots of people still believe the autism/vaccination link. Here is a set of arguments on why not to believe the CDC report from Katie Couric’s site at CBS news and is reposted on the National Autism Association news and views site. Both seemingly credible sources. But the arguments in that article are specious at best. Continue reading »

Please, Let This Be A Dream…

 Posted by  Abuse of Power, Bill of Rights, Bush Administration  No Responses »
Oct 172007
 

“This government does not torture people.”

Or so repeated President Bush a mere twelve days ago, after the New York Times reported that on CIA interrogation methods that sound an awful lot like torture.

And so, in today’s press conference, President Bush was asked how he defined torture. The Commander in Chief made a bold statement less than two weeks ago (a statement, I might add, that he has made on a number of previous occasions), and he was asked to defend that statement.

And the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the most powerful man on the planet… refused to answer the question. He looked a bit caught off guard, and responded that it’s “whatever the law says, and we don’t torture”. The reporter asked the President for his definition of what torture means, and the president ignored the question, called the next reporter, and smiled as if to stifle a laugh. You can read the transcript here, or watch the exchange at CSPAN.org (it’s exactly 43 minutes into the press conference).

So he’s positive that the government does not torture people, just don’t ask him to clarify that statement. Trust the man, he’s just trying to protect us, he would never do anything that crossed any ethical or constitutional lines. He won’t tell you where he thinks those ethical lines are. That’s not his job, he’s not a lawyer! His job is to decide, and he’s decided that we don’t torture, and therefore whatever harsh interrogation methods are being used aren’t torture, so what’s the problem?

Some days, I just can’t believe that this man is actually president.

News According to News Corp

 Posted by  The Media  10 Responses »
Oct 152007
 

Fox News has hit a new low.

It might be gone from their front page by the time you read this post, but as of this moment the headline on their website is “Which State Will Be The First To Legalize… Sex with a Robot?” (Bold in original.) The article is about David Levy, who has just successfully defended his thesis at the University of Maastricht (in the Netherlands) about intimate contacts between humans and robots. The article fails to mention what his field is.

The answer, by the way, to the question posed in the headline is, of course, Massachusetts. After all, they legalized gay marriage, so this must be the next logical step! Mr. Levy predicts that it will happen by about 2050, and the article takes it all at face value.

This is completely stupid. Maybe this guy’s research is legitimate (I doubt it’s of terribly high quality given his statements in the article, but I’ll give the guy the benefit of the doubt), but there is absolutely no reason for Fox to give any credence to it. It’s an obscure dissertation from a doctoral candidate at a European university from an unnamed department, and the article gives no mention to whether his work has been published anywhere. It’s not even like the article sights any original research done by the author; as far as I can tell, the paper seems like more of a philosophical treatise on the ethics of human-robot relationships. There might be a place for that kind of research, but that place is not the news.

Instead, the purpose of the article is to grab attention and to bash Massachusetts for being liberal, and liberals for being crazy. Because that’s the Fair and Balanced thing to do.

And in a few weeks, you just might be seeing this brand of hard-hitting journalism in the Wall St. Journal too!

Something I don’t understand

 Posted by  Fiscal Issues  3 Responses »
Oct 142007
 

Ok, here’s something I don’t understand that perhaps the more economics minded folks on leftfielder can explain to me.  I keep hearing politicians talking about tax cuts to boost the economy.  The idea being that if taxes are lower, people will have more disposable income, and will thus spend more.  The additional spending then boosts the economy.

But here’s what makes no sense to me:  What happens when taxes are higher?  The government then gets that money.  And the government spends it.  The government is VERY good at spending money.  So, even if the money is taxed, it gets spent, and thus boosts the economy.  It just works through a different avenue.

In fact, while lower taxes might encourage spending among individuals, it might also encourage more saving.  So, in that sense not taxing the money makes for a less efficient infusion of extra money into the economy.

Now, there are some very good reasons not to like taxes, and to want to keep taxes lower.  But “stimulating the economy” seems to be one of the prominent reasons that politicians give when they want to lower taxes, and I just don’t understand how that would work.  Can anybody clarify?

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha