What I Love About Science

I love when someone all science-y says something I was saying (even if it surprises others). In this case, it was an evolutionary biologist (Olivia Judson) who writes a blog for the NY Times.

What did she say? Well, you can read it yourself, but she basically gave herself permission to say, "what if," reminded us that science was more than a set of facts and data and presumed theories that made sense of said data, but also involve speculation.

Personally, playing "what if" is what I think is the second coolest part of science (with the actual investigation and testing of that speculation ringing in at number one, but I rarely get to generate data myself - just look over other people's). Heck, most of my writing is a direct result of playing "what if," but I've mentioned all this before.

What it got me to thinking about, though, is why this is such a hard concept for people. There are whole groups of people (including many engineers and some scientists) who think that science is all about facts, facts, facts and that speculation is anti-science. There are other people, largely laymen, who think science is all speculation or that all speculations are created equal.

Both are wrong.

Without imagination and curiosity, we might still be in the dark ages. Without challenging established thinking, existing theories, we'd still be confused about gravity and having a solar system (as opposed to thinking our world was the center of the universe). Most of our big scientific breakthroughs have been the result of challenging conventional thinking or going down a different scientific path, even rampant speculation. Why? Because when people fall in love with a notion, whether they got it through scientific means or by channeling messages from aliens, they tend to discard any and all data that doesn't fit with "reality." And, yes, it happens to scientists, too, but not so much the good ones (in my opinion).

But speculations are not all created equal. In order for speculation to fit with science it needs three things - it has to explain some piece of data (often new), it can't violate existing data, and the limitations of the speculation (i.e. that it is speculation as opposed to existing theory or fact) must be clear. That means speculating that vaccinations cause autism (which has conclusively been proven otherwise) does not count as science. As an example.

Part of the problem for scientists, in my opinion, is that so much of the science regular people get comes from mass media. Mass media, when they pass along speculation or possible conclusions, don't include those limitations, those caveats or, in fact, the important distinction that the "conclusions" are speculation as opposed to facts. No matter how meticulous your statements, no matter how exact and caveated, once the media has it, it is no longer yours.

The other part, in my opinion, is that many "science shows" on science-touting channels (which I would otherwise love) are going for drama to make science more exciting and frequently have scientists (or those that play them on TV) blurring and erasing those distinctions and further confusing the general public. When people confuse Mythbusters with the scientific process, there's something seriously wrong.

Sigh.

Read more...

Sunday Soapbox: I'm a Dreamer

*Steps on soapbox*

This soapbox is less or a rant or a lecture to all my readers than it is a self-realization I'm going to share. The soapbox, in this instance, is marginal, but I'm allowing it because, hey, it's my blog.

Last week, I asked my readers what love was and I was surprised at the answers. This isn't to say that anyone answered "wrong" or that there was, in fact, anything wrong with the answers I received (and I appreciate the honest answers). Just that I was expecting more dreamers among my readers. I guess a blog titled "Rocket Scientist" doesn't attract that sort of reader so much.

What surprised me even more was my reaction. My reaction was not that the responses were wrong. My practical side acknowledges that they often are correct, that love, particularly as portrayed in song, story and movie, is largely stupid and highly impractical. Only second to the horrible garbage that romantic love and rape are compatible is my aversion to the notion that two people can do nothing but fight among themselves unless they happen to be tearing each other's clothes off is romance. That's love?

But, I was surprised at how dispassionate some were about love, that it was more a formula than a reality or that love shouldn't involve any vulnerability, any risk.

Now I don't need a degree in psychology to know that being entirely dependent on another person for happiness is a recipe for disaster and codependency, but, as always, I'm not sure the other extreme is preferable. Risk free love sounds cold and lifeless, safe but colorless, you know, like diet food. It's enough to keep you alive, but not enough to live for. Or, at least, that's how it seems to me.

And that may be a key element. Everyone needs to find the kind and level of love that works for them. For some, it might be something safe where they never are at risk. Who am I to say that isn't enough for someone? It might be just the kind of love they need.

Some are holding out for the fairy tale, the notion that love will be perfect and magical, inexplicable and solve all their problems. If I'm skeptical that that is likely, I'm not in a position to tell someone they need to set their sites lower. For all I know, it's happened, even if I don't find sacrificing my sense of self to an all-powerful adoration.

And I'm not talking about just romantic love. Some people sacrifice themselves to a full-out love whether it's devoting themselves to a challenged child, a faltering parent, or a community in need in a third world nation.

I guess I believe in it all. I believe that friendship and sharing core values is the key to any long-term commitment, but I also believe that love at first sight is possible. I believe that people can find one another beautiful, physical appearance notwithstanding, but that the attraction can be communicated immediately. I believe that one can be vulnerable to someone else without sacrificing oneself absolutely. I believe some souls belong together - and, yes, I believe in souls.

But I also believe there isn't one truth for everyone, that what I believe in or don't has no power over anyone else, so, when I read things I didn't want to believe, I realized they didn't negate my beliefs nor were they wrong. They were just wrong for me, not because they might not be true for me, but because I didn't want live the kind of life where I could believe that kind of love was impossible.

After all, I don't have to experience or find something for it to exist. And believing the world has unconditionally and selfless love within it makes me happier, believing some people were made to be together makes me happier. Ironically, I would not have reached that realization if people hadn't challenged my beliefs. So, I'm grateful.

Takes all kinds in this world, I truly believe. I think the world would be even worse if we were all skeptical or all pessimistic or all optimistic or all trusting. I think it takes a healthy mix. I'm a dreamer when it comes to life and writing, and a pessimistic skeptic when it comes to work and politics. And that's fine. I think the world needs both.

*Steps off soapbox*

Read more...

Why Is Suicide a Crime?

I know it may seem facetious, but I have to ask, why is a suicide a crime? I mean, I understand the ambiguity behind euthenasia - without direction, who can know what someone would really choose for themselves?

But suicide is different. Suicide is someone choosing not to live any more for whatever reason. So, why is that illegal?

Oh, I know some religions are dead set against it, but we're supposed to be a secular nation. What's the legal justification to tell someone they can't die if that's what they prefer? Why is it "wrong"?

I can speculate at some reasons. There are those that think anyone who wants to kill themselves is mentally ill and must be protected from themselves. Why are we so sure that's so? Is it inconceivable that someone can be perfectly rational and just not want to live any more? The Japanese, of course, respected suicide as a way of erasing shame or finding glory. Many cultures in Asia and the Pacific and North America appreciate the notion of people knowing when it's time to die. So why does it have to be insane?

Now, many people understand other people facing a terminal illness or a painful debilitating illness wanting to die painlessly instead, but why do we feel we have to understand and agree with the reason they want to die? What's it to the rest of us?

If physical pain and misery are sufficient justification to "let" someone die, why not loneliness or hopelessness? Why not remorse or despair? Who's to say what's "enough" pain except the person involved? People survived Auschwitz, but could everyone? Should everyone be able to?

We value our freedom, that adults can make decisions for themselves as long as they don't illegally damage anyone else. So, if we can choose how to live our lives, why can't we choose when to end it?

Just wondering...

Read more...

Thieving Thursday: Factual Errors

Yep, it's time to lighten things up a bit and go with Thieving Thursday. This one comes from the always charming blog of I Do Things. JD and I go way back and it's been a while since I featured one my comments on that blog, so she's is overdue. It was a long comment, but this was the part I wanted to work from:

Factual errors, in my opinion, is not an oxymoron. You can make an error in judgement that has nothing to do with facts - like telling your mother when you actually had sex the first time or mentioning it was in her bed. Clearly, the error, in that case, was using the facts instead of a useful lie.

I'm actually finding it hard to understand why someone would think one can't be factual and still be wrong. One can use a fact, but use it for the wrong situation or in the wrong way. For example, one might know that the acceleration of gravity is 32 f/s2, but if your program is using metric, 32 is the wrong value.

One can have all the facts and still interpret them improperly, thereby making the wrong decision. Like knowing your wife loves coffee and luxurious baths and thinking somehow that making her a coffee bath would really make her happy.

There are the errors that involve using the facts exactly as they were meant to be used and having it be a mistake. Like telling your kid sister the truth about how big her butt really looks in her wedding dress. On her wedding day.

And then there are the errors that don't involve any facts at all. Like picking the wrong number at roulette...unless you want to count the fact that gambling is for idiots.

Read more...