Incompatible: Science and superstition

I was watching "How the Universe Works" on the Science Channel today -- a relatively infrequent occasion when the so-called Science Channel actually aired a program about science! -- and it got me to thinking:

If we go back to the time of ancient Greece, the first glimmerings of science began as "Natural Philosophy" with Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Archimedes, Pythagoras, and Eratosthenes, among others. This was the beginnings of a different approach to understanding the world around us, built on logic and empirical evidence, rather than superstition, mythology, and blind faith. Greek natural philosophers were something very new!

During and after the Renaissance, in fact, the increasingly empirical science being done ran headlong into those entrenched followers of superstition. Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Bruno, and many other scientists in Europe suffered persecution and even death at the hands of the Catholic Church because their findings were seen as heretical -- they were incompatible with biblical scriptures. Of course, many famous scientists of the time were faithful christians, as well, including such luminaries and Newton, Leibniz, and Kepler.

Today, we see the same conflicts wherever science offers an interpretation of the way the world works that contradicts cherished scriptural superstitions (and no conflicts where science fails to intersect with scripture). Fortunately, the power of the church (in nontheocracies) has declined to the point where it can't enforce its teaching with torture, imprisonment, and death! Wherever religion and politics are deeply intertwined, of course, the church continues to show its claws when it comes to doubters and unbelievers!

Evolution, deep geological time, modern cosmology -- they all clash with various religious writings and teachings, so we have the growth of a profoundly anti-science movement that coincides with the growing acceptance of religious beliefs here in the USA. That this religious revival is associated with an anti-science movement is not an accident of history. And, as in the past, we have scientists who somehow manage to embrace both science and religion (although they represent a minority among scientists), which I maintain are so diametrically opposed as to deny any rational acceptance of both. I take it as a given that as the stature of the scientist grows, the fraction accepting deistic religious belief declines. The question becomes -- how to explain those scientists who do embrace belief in a deity!

Many aspects of science seem mysterious to non-scientists -- in particular, some say that science requires the same sort of faith that is embodied in religion. This is nothing less than a profound misunderstanding of science. Science offers hypotheses about the natural world that can be tested against evidence, not unsubstantiated claims. The acceptance of a hypothesis requires that it be consistent with the evidence, but its acceptance is always provisional, never final. New evidence may require a revision of the hypothesis, or it may re-affirm the acceptability of an existing hypothesis. The more tests a scientific idea can pass, the more highly regarded that idea becomes, but never to the point of becoming dogma, to be accepted on faith. And, contrary to the claims of some believers, science is never arrogant in its claims to understanding -- good science always is associated with humility in the face of all that scientists have learned we don't yet understand in the very process of gaining new understanding! We labor long and hard to learn the limits to our understanding, and typically resent those who come by their ignorance the easy way!

Religion (at least the major monotheistic faiths that dominate the western and middle eastern world) demands blind faith. Its highest ideal is absolute, child-like obedience and unquestioning faith. Doubt is not permitted, and considered heretical, to say nothing of pointing out religious contradictions with reality. Religion claims sole possession of truth for itself and its self-appointed leaders. When science and religion happen to clash on a subject, the faithful are required to reject science.

Consider what science has given us:

1. We now know that stars are suns, powered by thermonuclear fusion
2. We now know that all the matter of the Universe is the condensed energy from the 14 billion year-old "Big Bang" and that the Universe is not at all static and unchanging
3. We now know that our solar system, with the Sun at its heart, is about 5 billion years old, and includes a host of objects besides the Earth: planets (that are not stars at all, but other worlds), asteroids, comets. etc.
   
4. We now know that life has evolved from its earliest beginnings (as yet unexplained) into complex life forms, including we humans, during the existence of the Earth
5. We now know that volcanoes and earthquakes result from plate tectonics and the processes driven by the heat within the Earth's interior
6. We now know that storms are the result of processes associated with unequal heating

Many of the gaps in our scientific understanding have been filled, no longer requiring a role for a deity as an "explanation" for that phenomenon. At points in the past, all these things (and more) were not known, and various myths were proposed to "explain" such things, many of which revolved around some deity (many have been postulated!) whose wrath at our lack of belief was responsible for these natural events. Most human beings over the history of our species have lived out their entire lives with only superstition and mythology to explain what they saw around them. They never knew what stars are, they had no idea how we humans came to be here on Earth, and they had no clue as to why they experienced geological and meteorological hazards. Myths were an early, unscientific way, to try to explain things, but science has no place for the "God Hypothesis" as it offers no explanation at all. Gods are the ultimate deus ex machina.

It seems very strange to me to embrace both science and religion, since they involve such contradictory methods regarding knowledge of the world around us. It's at best a monument to the ability of humans to compartmentalize their thinking. The lifelong habits of successful science should disallow the very notion of accepting someone's ideas on faith, without question or doubt.

Living and dying with the models

Oklahoma has experienced some dramatic weather events the past several days - we had a major snow event preceded by thundersleet (and some hail!) last week that was quite well forecast by the numerical weather prediction (NWP) models and so was well-anticipated. The confidence in the forecast was high enough that many schools and businesses actually announced they were going to be shut down the next day, well before the first precipitation even began! Given Norman's pathetic snow and ice removal capabilities, many schools and businesses stayed closed for the rest of the week thanks to an extended period of bitter cold (i.e., below melting temperatures).

Another significant event was anticipated for this week, but it turned out to have missed Norman, for the most part. We experienced considerably less than the forecast snow amounts. Of course, schools and businesses had again announced they were going to shut down before a flake had fallen. This time, it seems, such precaution was unnecessary, given the modest snowfall. In such situations, many folks want to blame the forecasters for "hyping" the event into "Snowmageddon" or a "Snopocalypse" and causing unnecessary alarm. I have a couple of things to say about this. I'm not the only one - see here and here for some thoughts by a colleague.

First of all, let me say that weather forecasting continues to be an uncertain business. If you want the weather forecasters to make your decisions for you, there inevitably are going to be times when they're wrong. If snow falls on a 10% probability of snow, that should be expected one time out of ten times they forecast snow with a 10% probability! And if snow doesn't fall on a 90% probability, that's to be expected one time out of ten when they forecast snow with a 90% probability! There is no prospect that forecasting will ever be so good as to be absolutely correct 100% of the time.

What is your cost associated with taking unnecessary precautions? How does that compare to the loss associated with the failure to take precautions when you should have? It can be shown that the ratio of cost over loss is important in deciding at what level of confidence in some event you should take precautions. If your costs tied to taking precautions are higher than the losses for not taking precautions, you should never take precautions! If your costs are very low compared to your losses, it makes sense to take those precautions at a low confidence threshold. Cost/loss ratios vary among decision-makers, so different forecast users should make different decisions in situations where the forecast probabilities are the same. Decision-makers should understand this, but many don't. That's their problem, not that of the forecasters. Ignorance is not always blissful.

Having said that, it's also clear that the NWP models were a major factor in the degree of confidence the forecasters had in their forecasts. As explained by my colleague, we now run ensembles of forecasts in order to establish how likely an event might be. The assumption is that the variability among the ensemble members is wide enough that, for the most part, the actual observed weather will fall somewhere within the range of possibilities revealed by the ensemble. As shown by this week's event, that isn't always true, however. Quantitative precipitation forecasting (QPF) is one of the most challenging things that forecasters attempt, and it's becoming clear with time that forecasters are relying heavily on the information provided by NWP models (including ensembles of model runs) to guide their QPF products. If you live by the models, however, there will be times when they lead you astray, and you will "die" (metaphorically) by them.

I'm not a forecaster and I make no pretense of being one. But there are times when I wonder about what their logic might be when they make their choices. I don't like to be a "Monday morning quarterback" when it comes to specific forecasts, of course. Nevertheless, I was nowhere near as confident about this week's event being a significant one here in Norman as were most of those folks paid to forecast the weather. Of course, I didn't put out my own forecast, so I have no way to validate that I'm not simply using 20-20 hindsight. You'll just have to take my word for that. Or not.

Way back in 1977, Len Snellman introduced the notion of "meteorological cancer" wherein forecasters would come simply to pass on the NWP model guidance without any further consideration. It seems that Len Snellman was much better at forecasting the process of weather forecasting than we are at forecasting the actual weather!

Redefining Rape? You're kidding me, right?

This past week, it seems that some members of the christian nationalist party (aka, the GOP) have been suggesting that we need to revisit the definition of rape - it seems that they want to limit it to purely "forcible" rape, and eradicate the term "rape" when it's committed on people who are drugged or drunk (date rape), or on underage children (statutory rape). This campaign isn't about rape, actually - it's about abortion. But now an idiot in Georgia wants those who identify rapists to be called "accusers" rather than victims, until the rapist is convicted of rape in a court.

For the vast majority of rapes, it's not a matter of sex - it's an act of violence. Since the majority of rapists are men and the majority of rape victims are women, it seems that violence by men against women is something of a lesser crime to these predominantly male "lawmakers." Rape victims are reluctant to accuse their rapist perpetrators because society chooses to see many of the victims as having "asked for it," and so are treated like prostitutes instead of victims. The shame and humiliation of it (which are essential elements of this violent act for the rapist) can keep victims from coming forth to accuse their rapist. We have seen repeatedly that those who accuse someone of rape are, in turn, accused of being wanton harlots, and testimony about their personal lives is used to discredit them as victims deserving of our sympathy and support.

Yes, there are false accusations from time to time, and having one's reputation sullied in this way can be an awful thing when the accusations aren't justified. But is the chance of that so important on our priority scale that we prefer to see rapists get off scot free, time and again, while their accusers are discredited and humiliated beyond the act itself? Our justice system provides the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law, but we don't treat most victims of theft this way. We don't treat most victims of assault this way. Why should we treat rape victims this way?

Maybe these lawmakers should experience rape for themselves. Perhaps then they might be able to muster some empathy for rape victims and quit trying to turn victims into villains.

As it turns out, I know something about this on a very personal level. When I was a young teenager, I was raped by an older "friend" who had bought alcohol for me. I was horribly drunk when it happened, and totally unconscious when he began. I woke up in pain and surprise ... it went on an on forever, it seemed. Then he finally finished and left. I was so ashamed of the situation afterward that I never told anyone about it, including my parents. To have accused him surely would have implicated me in the illegal consumption of alcohol, as well. This incident from my past isn't something that makes me proud - far from it! - but it has forever made me a champion for victim's rights in rape cases.

I prefer that no one ever have to experience this act of violence, but no one should be made to feel like they somehow were at fault, either, when it happens to them. This is one situation where I can honestly say that I understand what female victims are going through and I'm entirely in their corner! Rape is a despicable crime and its perpetrators should be given serious punishment for it! This shameful political campaign to redefine rape needs to end and those supporting it need to be run out of public office, as soon as possible!

How much warning of danger is too much?

As I write this (Monday afternoon - 31 Jan 2011), the midwestern US is under the threat of a major winter storm. This event has been anticipated for several days, thanks to the increasingly accurate numerical weather prediction (NWP) models that are the major foundation of weather forecasting these days. Amongst my meteorological acquaintances, there's been widespread grumbling about the "hype" associated with public statements regarding this impending event. Recent history shows a number of events that were "hyped" that turned out to be not much. A colleague has already written an extensive blog regarding the challenges associated with forecasting such situations. I have little to add to his excellent and detailed assessments of this situation.

However, I do want to comment about the issue of "hype" associated with weather warnings (which are forecasts, of course). First, I'll offer some background.

The local TV stations here in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area have been engaging in a decades-long "weather war" for ratings supremacy in this weather-conscious market. TV broadcasters here get much more air time than in most (if not all) other TV markets and it's been demonstrated (in the OKC market) that the most popular forecaster helps his station get the best ratings, on the average. One mechanism for this is their efforts to outdo each other to show how they're helping the public, which includes making almost any reasonably strong thunderstorm approaching the metro area sound like the imminent apocalypse. I've long felt that they have used the weather in this region as a mechanism for self-promotion in the battle for ratings, with service to the public a distant second in their priorities. In fact, I long ago quit watching the local stations (except when they're airing live tornado videos!), out of sheer disgust at their vacuous self-promotion. Of course, that's the industry standard in the media - ratings always trump service.

So much for the background. Now, I hear from some meteorologists I know that the warnings about the potentially serious impacts of this impending winter storm have been contributing to the "hype" associated with forecasting. I have two problems with such comments:

1) Any winter storm carries with it some significant hazards to human life (and property). That simply cannot be denied. Now, if we could forecast the weather perfectly (i.e., with absolute certainty) then the issue of what people choose to do (or not do) in response to those forecasts would be entirely in the hands of the users of the forecast information. I recall seeing news coverage in the past of, say, large numbers of cars abandoned on Interstate highways in a blizzard, even when the storms producing the blizzard were well-forecast. Apparently, those travelers either didn't receive the message, didn't understand the message, didn't know what to do about the message, or simply ignored the message for some reason (including not believing it, or not believing it applied to them). None of those options are in the hands of the forecasters, who are just trying to put out the best forecast they can. Perhaps some might blame the forecasters for these stranded travelers because the forecasters didn't word their forecast products strongly enough! Apparently, some forecast users need more than just a winter storm warning to take the threat seriously!! Forecasters are not to blame for this, however.

2) The seriousness of the wording in a forecast is likely related to forecaster confidence in the possibility for a major weather event. Some forecasters are more confident than others in any given situation, and disagreements about the confidence one might want to put into a forecast intended for public users of weather information are common. In the best of all possible worlds, forecasters would be "calibrated" so that their uncertainties wouldn't be widely different in a given weather situation. But we don't live in that best of all possible worlds - opinions about the likelihood of a given event will vary. If a forecaster is overconfident frequently, then s/he needs to re-calibrate, which necessarily involves doing a meaningful verification of the forecasts and learning how to use that feedback to achieve proper "calibration". Having said all this, if a forecaster is confident that, say, a major winter storm event is likely, why not spread the word about that in advance? Is that "hype" or just being honest about one's meteorological assessment of the situation? Should a forecaster suppress information just for the sake of not being accused of contributing to weather anxiety? It might not happen as forecast, but isn't it better to have prepared for the potential and have it turn out you didn't need it, than to make no preparations and then discover you should have? Better safe than sorry, it seems to me!! Err on the side of caution, if erring is inevitable. [I'm avoiding the subject of expressing uncertainty in the form of probabilistic forecasts. See here for some discussion.]

This brings up the subject of "panic" in relation to weather forecasts. For many decades, tornado forecasting was forbidden because some bureaucrats decided that the public would panic at the mere mention of the word "tornado" in a weather forecast. When the bureaucrats in the Weather Bureau were forced to being issuing tornado forecasts, no panic ever ensued. The notion that panic will result from telling the honest truth about weather expectations has no factual basis whatsoever. If foreknowledge of an impending winter storm causes people to rush to stores in order to stock up on items they might need for a period of paralysis in the wake of a storm, that isn't "panic" - it's common sense!!

As I write this, there's a debate ongoing about the need to add qualifiers to winter storm warnings - something along the lines of adding the "particularly dangerous situation" phrase to a winter storm warning. Personally, I see no reason for, or value to, such a step. If someone doesn't already know that a winter storm can be dangerous, it's not at all evident that adding such a phrase is going to make a difference for them. Of course, no one knows much about how the public sees such things because we have yet to do the hard work to validate some of these ideas. I could be all wet about this - adding such a phrase might make a huge difference. But I want to be shown some solid evidence before I change my mind.

We can never prevent some people from doing stupid things. There always will be those who will put themselves in danger deliberately, for reasons of their own. There always will be those who choose not to accept any personal responsibility for their own safety. There always will be those who refuse to make any preparations for weather hazards, under any circumstances. And I agree that we meteorologists can't simply put our best forecast out there and hope for the best when it comes to people being able to use our forecasts successfully. I've talked about this elsewhere. Public sector weather forecasts (including those by media forecasters) should be crafted to be of the greatest possible value to the greatest number of users, but we meteorologists are not knowledgeable about how to do that. We need factual information if we are to re-formulate forecast products to match that goal. Not guesswork, not opinions, and not speculation (without evidence).

Science, Public Policy, and James Hansen

I've been carrying on somewhat reluctantly an extended argument for some time with a non-scientist friend of mine, who happens to be a skeptic regarding anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) global warming (AGW). He's a very smart person and is quite passionate in his belief that AGW is some sort of scandalous conspiracy perpetrated by, among others, the majority of global climate change scientists. He's constantly bombarding me with the little nuggets he searches out on the Web that seem to support his position and challenging me to enter into this argument. For the most part, I prefer not to get sucked into such arguments, largely because I see them as a waste of time (see my discussion of civility in discourse). But like a stone in your shoe, sometimes you just have to respond. I've touched on the AGW topic in other blogs and essays, of course.

The latest thing to stir him up has been the rather intemperate remarks by Dr. James Hansen (head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science), who was paraphrased by the Washington Times:

According to Mr. Hansen, compared to China, we are "the barbarians" with a "fossil-money- 'democracy' that now rules the roost," making it impossible to legislate effectively on climate change. Unlike us, the Chinese are enlightened, unfettered by pesky elections.

Democracies are infamous for being a poor and inefficient form of government. However, democracy is widely accepted by many of us (including me) as being better than any other known form of government. I'm certainly no fan of the current Chinese government - it's an oligarchical Communist autocracy coupled to corporate greed. However, pure majority rule is something the so-called founding fathers of the US feared, because the majority can be convinced easily to trample on the rights of minorities, which is the main reason for the Bill of Rights. The public apparently can be led down paths that might not be very good for their societies, and what is right and best for a society may not be popular enough at a given time to carry the day. I'm sure if the German public had been allowed to vote in 1914 when they were on the brink of WWI, they would have voted heavily in favor of the coming war. WWI turned out to be disastrous for them, of course.

Who knows what's best for a society? That can be a tough question. Opinions will vary but, to my knowledge, no one can be certain. When it comes to scientific issues, though, it seems logical to me to trust the scientists who study those topics. Science, like anything else done by humans, is not perfect. Individual scientists can stray from scientific ethics in disturbing ways (see here and here for examples). And consensus science is not inevitably correct (more on that later). Nevertheless (not unlike democracy), science is the best we have, in this case to answer questions regarding the natural world and how it affects society. We choose to disregard what science has to offer at our peril.

Hence, I think I understand Dr. Hansen's remarks as being a reflection of his passion about trying to do something substantial about AGW in the face of all the vocal and influential opposition marshaled by those who have something to lose if something is done to mitigate AGW. No doubt Dr. Hansen's comments will be spun by right-wing media "pundits" (who speak for and also influence the position of many political conservatives) as Dr. Hansen advocating Communism, of course. It wouldn't surprise me if his remarks will become the catalyst for a witch hunt aimed at removing him from his Federal position!

What bothers me most about all of this is the continuing powerful influence of people who are not global change scientists in the public discourse about AGW. The scientific debate on AGW is effectively over, at least for the moment - the vast majority of climate change scientists have accepted the consensus position represented by the IPCC Reports. I'm not going to discuss the particulars of that debate in this blog, but if science is to be the basis for making public policy decisions in certain situations, the scientific part of the AGW argument is no longer in much doubt.

What puzzles me is how AGW skeptics who are non-participants in global climate science have so much to say and have so much influence on the AGW public policy debate. From the point of view of a democracy, they're simply exercising their right to take a position favoring their own interests. They're equal to anyone in regard to the functioning of a democracy. No responsible scientist truly wants to take that right away, but when the continuing debate hampers efforts to mitigate a serious danger to our society's well-being, it's understandable how some scientists could become frustrated enough to make intemperate remarks. On the scientific side, the playing ground is far from level; it's highly tilted one way by the preponderance of evidence and our current understanding of how the atmosphere works. Those skeptics who aren't global climate change scientists are not equal partners in the scientific debate, regardless of their equality in a political debate!

The skeptics generally have chosen not to present their views in scientific journals or at scientific conferences where their peers can judge the validity of their evidence - that is, the appropriate venues for a scientific debate. Rather, some of them loudly proclaim themselves in the media to be the victims of a vast conspiracy to silence their point of view and routinely impugn the motives of the vast majority of climate change scientists. They represent the IPCC reports as political propaganda for a left-wing conspiracy to destroy capitalism (or whatever). In fact, their tactics are precisely those of a politician trying to stir up public support by using propaganda on behalf of the self-interests of the skeptics. I know of no global change scientists who are enriching themselves by doing their science (although I don't know them all), but I certainly can see the hand of powerful corporate interests behind the brouhaha associated with AGW skeptics. Some of them may be getting support from corporations who have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the debate over public policy. Remember the scientists who proclaimed in the media that no one had 'proven' a connection between smoking and health?

Science is not inherently democratic. Scientific issues are not decided by majority vote, but on the basis of evidence. The consensus (i.e., the majority) interpretation of that evidence can be wrong, of course. In fact, it has been wrong about some things in the past, is wrong about some things now, and will be wrong about some things again in the future. But this is the way science works! Don't be asking for definitive "scientific proof"! Science never provides absolute "proof" of anything. New ideas replace the old ones in science all the time by a well-established process that is described loosely by the 'scientific method' phrase.

The current situation regarding the AGW debate isn't a scientific argument at all - that's been settled, for the time being, as already noted - rather, it's been transformed into a political conflict. It's about winning the hearts and minds of the American public. If science is supposed to be the basis for deciding public policy issues that involve science, then this endless back and forth is simply using up precious time, delaying meaningful responses to what has been established by science to be a problem. I can see how Dr. Hansen might wish to command American society to start moving toward mitigation of AGW, but I don't agree with allowing scientists become our society's oligarchical dictatorship. I don't seek that power and don't believe any scientist should. However frustrating it might be, grasping for the power to move society in directions we want it to go is not about science - it's ultimately only about power. That's what many of the skeptics are seeking, it seems to me, since they're not engaged in the scientific process.

Scientific "proof"?

I've had many occasions to take issue with the notion of scientific "proof" and how that notion is understood by non-scientists. In particular, non-scientists have trouble accepting that scientific proof is, in fact, impossible!

Perhaps if one thinks back to one's happy days learning geometry in high school, the notion of mathematical "proof" will be recalled with fond memories! Or perhaps not. In any case, in mathematics, "proof" of a theorem is accomplished when one follows the laws of mathematical logic, beginning with some premise, say X, and then asserting that Y follows from X. If that theorem can be shown to be derivable from the axioms of the mathematical system in question (e.g., Euclidean geometric axioms) according to the laws of mathematical logic, proof is obtained. Once established, a proof cannot be contravened. No one disputes the Pythagorean Theorem of Euclidean geometry, for instance. Once proven, it remains proven for all time. There might be a different proof that's more "elegant" in some way, but the theorem has been established beyond doubt in any case. You can dispute the premises associated with a theorem (theorems typically involve an "if X, then Y" statement, so X might be disputed, but if you grant X, then a proof of the theorem makes Y inevitable), or you might see that in a different axiom system, that proof isn't valid, but within the constraints of the exercise, there can be no further dispute regarding that theorem. A proof in mathematics is forever, and has no qualifications whatsoever, other than the aforementioned possibilities: dispute the premise or consider a different set of axioms.

What about science? Many people believe that such a thing as "scientific proof" exists. For instance, one might argue that the Law of Gravity has been proven beyond any question. A large number of experiments (and common experience) suggests that it might be very difficult to come up with an example where the Law of Gravity has been shown to be invalid. However, "absolute proof" is tricky. No number of experiments can ever establish absolute proof, although they certainly can make a compelling case for those scientific hypotheses that survive a large number of rigorous experimental tests. Nevertheless, from a purely logical standpoint, it might be the case that we simply haven't done the right experiments to test the hypothesis in question adequately. In fact, it's impossible to "prove" that no experiment exists that would be capable of invalidating any scientific hypothesis. So we are entitled in certain cases to behave as if absolute proof has been obtained, since the hypotheses in question have survived some tough tests, but we must submit to the logical possibility that a counter-example might someday be found, even though we have yet to find any.

Scientific hypotheses are always provisional and can never be subjected to absolute proof! Einstein has, in fact, created a new version of the Law of Gravity that differs in very interesting and subtle ways from that first formulated by Isaac Newton. Thus, in this sense, Newton's Law of Gravity has been "disproven" and replaced by Einstein's Law of Gravity, even though for centuries no one ever dreamed of looking at the circumstances associated with what Einstein figured out regarding gravity. So far, Einstein's version has survived every test, as did Newton's version for centuries. There can be no logical guarantees for Einstein's version, however. Our understanding of gravity is limited and our hypotheses about it are always subject to re-examination, new tests, and possible revision. The putative Law of Gravity has nothing like the rock-solid standing of the Pythagorean Theorem, and never will.

It's the very nature of the scientific enterprise that we test our ideas against evidence. This is the fundamental basis of the so-called "scientific method." There is no simple formulaic way to describe the "scientific method," however. Hypothesis testing is dependent on the nature of the evidence available to use to test our ideas, and is a source for considerable creativity in science. It is by no means a simple algorithm to be applied to all scientific ideas. In some sciences (including meteorology, geology, and astronomy), it's impossible to run controlled experiments to test our ideas. Hence, such sciences depend on how to use and interpret whatever observational evidence is available, rather than running tightly controlled experiments (as in a laboratory). This doesn't diminish the scientific standing of those disciplines, however. They just have to be more creative in how to test their ideas and more cautious in their interpretations of the results of their tests.

To the extent that we can conduct experiments that can give our ideas a rigorous test, we can have some faith in accepting our current understanding as "not yet invalidated" hypotheses. But no scientific experiments can provide the sort of logical inevitability that mathematical logic offers. "Scientific proof" is not a valid understanding of how science actually works!

Hence, whenever you hear someone talk of "scientific proof," you can be assured that this person has an incorrect understanding of science!

Scientific scandal

A colleague of mine has recently posted an excellent blog regarding the recent scandal arising out of the putative relationship between vaccinations and autism. Public views about science vary a lot but there are those who would point to this scandal (and others) to support an anti-science viewpoint. They might conclude that by being less than 100% perfect, science loses all credibility. Those holding such a 'holier than thou' position should perhaps examine their own lives and consider how perfect their behavior has been. Anyway, I have some comments regarding my colleague's blog:

Lest a gratuitous co-author (i.e., someone insisting on being added to the author list, or accepting an invitation to be a co-author on a paper about which they know little or nothing) choose to deny any responsibility for the content of any paper on which they are a co-author, they should realize that if they have any positive scientific reputation, they're lending their credibility to that paper. If they're co-authors on a fraudulent paper that gets published, they'll inevitably suffer a significant loss of credibility among their peers. No amount of rationalizing can wash their reputation fully clean after that.

That said, however, there has to be an element of trust in a scientific partnership. It's an ideal, but for the most part, individual scientists on a paper with multiple authors don't actually review and replicate everything in every paper. That's simply not a realistic obligation. Nor is it plausible to add a "statement of work" for each author to the paper. In the real world of scientific collaboration, individual authors bring different skills and efforts to the whole, and individual scientists legitimately may have only a superficial understanding of the specialty knowledge brought to the project by their collaborators. If don't trust your colleagues, you'd have to know everything about everything and do everything yourself. Why bother with collaborators in that case?

Funny thing about trust: it can be hard to gain and easy to lose, but as I see it, the default position should be to trust until something happens to violate that. If you trust no one until they've proven their trustworthiness in some sort of a crucible, you'll have a very limited set of colleagues. Anyone can be victimized by a collaborator who turns out to be untrustworthy. It's not fair that some scientist would take a serious hit to their credibility if they were so victimized, but the world isn't necessarily fair! You only have control over things that you do, so it behooves any scientist to behave with integrity, irrespective of what anyone else does.

It's unfortunate that science has such scandals, but it simply reflects the undeniable fact that science is a human endeavor, with all that that implies. Not everyone will always choose to abide by its standards. Science as a whole isn't tarnished by the scandals perpetrated by the deeds of an unethical few. But as my colleague has said, we all feel a collective revulsion and sadness when such things come to light. And there are those who will seize on such events to attempt to discredit science as a whole.

The scandal does underscore the risk you take as a "gratuitous" co-author, and I believe, like my colleague, that the benefit of adding another paper to your CV doesn't outweigh that risk. I always trust my collaborators to do their work with high integrity and I'd be shocked and ashamed to find that a co-author had done something so contemptible. But there's always a finite possibility it could happen to me. If something like this happened to some scientist I know, then my default assumption would be they weren't truly responsible for the ethical lapse of another. This doesn't contradict with my assertion that they're formally responsible for the content of a paper on which they're a co-author, however. Real life can be complicated ...

Aggravations - part 1

I haven't had a whole lot to post of late. I pity those who have to crank out some content on a regular basis ... Anyway, what follows is me being gripy about certain things. There may be more of these in the future, so I'm labeling this the first installment of whining and complaining about things that annoy me.

1. I've come to really detest the combination dog tag/key card that gives me access to the Intergalactic Weather Center and my office therein. I dislike having to wear security "dog tags" in our building, anyway, but that's not why I'm griping about it. For the umpteenth time today, I set out to go to the office and realized after going about two miles that I didn't have my key card.* Sometimes I make it all the way to the office before realizing I've left the blasted thing at home! There's no point trying to enter the building without it, so I have no choice but to turn around and go back home, where I'll find it precisely where I've left it (e.g., next to my desk). In bygone days, we used a physical key to get into a building after hours, and perhaps another such key to open our office space. The key(s) would be safely and permanently on the same key ring that holds my car keys, so if I got into the car and was able to operate it, I'd be able to get into my office. With this damned thingy, if I forget to take it off before I leave the car, I'll have to take it off sometime in the house, and in doing so, there's a good chance I'll forget to bring it on my way out the door to get in my car next time. And, by the way, when the battery in my office lock goes dead, my key card won't open my office door. I dislike key cards!! Bring back physical keys!!

2. A common gripe of mine has been the extreme rarity with which other drivers use their turn signals here in AbNorman. However, of late, this gripe is being displaced by those who pull out of side streets into my traffic lane, at times in such a way that causes me to have to brake to prevent a collision, and then just poke-assing along. If you clowns were in such a hurry that you couldn't wait for me to pass before pulling out, why are you just dawdling along after you pull out? I would think you'd be accelerating like John Force and roaring down the road to get to your destination, so that I'd be left in your dust. Instead, after you force your way into traffic in front of me, it's the old helium foot on the accelerator! It's become almost laughable how many times this happens to me as I drive about AbNorman these days. I'm coming to expect it (and driving accordingly), just as I have to expect people to fail to signal their intentions to turn.

3. Some years ago, a colleague of mine used to amaze me by the vehemence of his reactions to certain stupid questions and comments that people would make. He was one of the true giants in my field and I admired his work but was always somewhat put off by his acerbic responses to certain questions regarding his work. I thought it was counter-productive to become upset with ignorance. Now, as time has passed, I find myself similarly put off by comparable stupid questions and/or comments. Although I'm still trying (sometimes unsuccessfully) to avoid my tendency for sarcasm as a way to respond to ignorant remarks, I have to admit that having to address the very same ignorant questions and/or comments about a subject over... and over... and over... for decades can become a serious source of aggravation. I think I now appreciate why this great man had this particular "flaw" in his demeanor. It seems that no matter how many times you show someone the errors in their interpretation, those errors never seem to go away. Someone new will express them, even if you've somehow managed to convince those who expressed them to you earlier. Of course, there's no guarantee that you will convince anyone to change their way of thinking. Ignorance is never in short supply, it seems. I still maintain it's counter-productive to become upset with ignorance, but experience continues to show me that my mentor blazed a path for me in this regard, as well.

__________
* Now some of you (you know who you are!) might be tempted to go off about my increasing absent-mindedness as a function of my "advanced age." Balderdash - I've been absent-minded all my life, so it's not at all evident that this is a sign of anything!

Chasing mythology - 2

My next storm chasing mythology target is the often-repeated notion that storm chasing saves lives. Chasers rationalize their chasing in this way by claiming that they provide information about ongoing storms, including identifying when and where tornadoes are occurring. It may or may not be the case that an individual making such a claim actually takes the time to report what they're seeing in real time.

In any case, the fact is that it's only the National Weather Service (NWS) and civil authorities who can claim legitimately to save lives through the storm warnings they issue by using information that might (or might not) be provided by chasers. Chasing, per se, saves no lives, ever! In my experience, many chasers are too busy pursuing their hobby to be bothered with calling in their observations. In 1999, in a famous chaser convergence near Almena, KS, my wife and I were the only chasers amongst a multitude to call the NWS to report the development of a tornado. There were dozens of vehicles scurrying about in typical chaser convergence chaos, and no one apparently had called the NWS, even though a funnel cloud that would become a tornado was in progress! It was astonishing to me when we called the NWS to learn we had been the first to call!

The technology of chasing has made huge strides - now it's become possible for the NWS to follow the GPS locations of chasers and to call the chaser, rather than waiting for the chaser to call them. Live video streaming allows the NWS to see what some chasers see through their windshields. This is all well and good - it allows chasers the luxury of not having to bother with actively reporting what they see and to maintain the illusion that they're "contributing" information in this passive way. But it remains true that it's still not the chasers who are saving lives. That's the responsibility of the NWS and civil authorities (first responders, emergency managers, storm spotters, TV broadcasters, etc.) .

I know of no chasers who chase in order to save lives. Chasers chase because seeing storms is a passion, or because they want to become rich and/or famous people (drawing attention to themselves), or any of a host of other reasons, including science. Storm chasing is a basically selfish activity. Note that storm spotting can and does save lives, but spotting and chasing are very distinct activities! Spotters are volunteers serving their communities - chasers are simply pursuing their own interests.

Scientific storm chasers also like to use the "saving lives" card, arguing that their science will be put to use to increase warning lead times (an argument I've disputed here and here), or whatever. This argument is simply not valid - storm chasers working on a scientific project are also not chasing to save lives, although their scientific findings might someday be used successfully by someone who is responsible for saving lives. They're out there to do science, not to save lives. Their passion is for learning about the atmosphere. The new understanding they can derive from chasing might or might not have an impact on reducing storm-related fatalities. Life-saving isn't on their agenda when they go out on a chase.

Some storm chasers, myself included, have been involved in helping the NWS develop spotter training programs. I support this because I believe it's an important way for chasers to give something back to the society that supports the programs (like the NWS data) they use to intercept storms. In fact, I'm proud of having contributed to spotter training - but I make no claim that I saved lives by doing so. I give the credit for life-saving to the NWS and the civil authorities!!

The fact is that only the NWS and civil authorities save lives when tornadoes and severe storms threaten. Storm chasers are simply hoping to clean up their image by claiming that role for themselves. But no one has given them that responsibility (with the arguable exception of those chasers who chase for media broadcasters, a group that's been known to exceed their authority at times).

There is one way in which storm chasers might save lives - by stopping to render medical assistance to people injured by a storm. I know of no storm chaser who can say, however, that they've ever saved a victim's life. Perhaps a few such exist and I'm just unaware of their life-saving contributions. If so, I honor their unselfish actions. The number of lives saved via the direct first aid of storm chasers must be pretty small, though. Moreover, in order to save a life by this process, a storm chaser must stop chasing! In other words, it's not the chasing that has saved a life in such a case! The most such a chaser could say was that chasing brought him/her to a place where they could render life-saving aid. But saving a life wasn't on their agenda when they began the chase.

Thanksgiving thoughts

My friend RJ Evans has written a wonderful essay, indicating that rather than expressing our gratitude to a non-existent deity, much of our gratitude should be directed to our fellow human beings. I agree completely with RJ's notion about this. I can begin by offering similar thanks to my wife, whose beauty and love have been the rock-solid core of my life for more than 35 years now. And thanks to the rest of my family (beginning with my mother and father), to the many friends along my path who have have added so much that is good to my life, and to my professional colleagues and mentors.

Through an accident of birth, I was born in a nation where I benefited from the economic prosperity provided by loving parents so that I could pursue my dreams. The nation into which I was born has granted me more freedom and prosperity (by means of those freedoms) than can be found in most countries around the planet, thanks to the wisdom and foresight of those who created this nation. There can be no doubt that I have many people to thank for what has been a very happy and fulfilling life. If I'm run over by a truck tomorrow, it will have been all of you who made my time on Earth so delightful. I offer my gratitude to you all.

But ... there's a missing element here. Through some mysterious accident over which none of us had any control whatsoever, we came into existence through a serious of "miracles" that we simply don't understand. Science has shed light on the process, but much remains unknown and could remain so for a long time. Somehow, a universe was created billions of years ago. Within this universe, stars formed, organized themselves into galaxies - many of those stars blew up in gargantuan explosions that seeded the universe with the heavier elements that today form the matter from which we and our Earth have been made.

On this Earth, that matter organized itself into life somehow, which then evolved over billions of years to create us and the environment which makes our lives possible. Within the Earth's environment, I've been fortunate enough to have the means to travel and to chase storms. By this means, I've experienced many times the wonder and awe of the natural world around me in ways that transcend mere words, transporting me into a place where I can lose my self and feel deep in my mind that wordless joy at knowing I'm a part of something that surpasses all understanding.

As Robinson Jeffers has put it:

Then what is the answer?— Not to be deluded by dreams.
To know that great civilizations have broken down into violence,
and their tyrants come, many times before.
When open violence appears, to avoid it with honor or choose
the least ugly faction; these evils are essential.
To keep one’s own integrity, be merciful and uncorrupted
and not wish for evil; and not be duped
By dreams of universal justice or happiness.
These dreams will not be fulfilled.
To know this, and know that however ugly the parts appear
the whole remains beautiful. A severed hand
Is an ugly thing and man dissevered from the earth and stars
and his history... for contemplation or in fact...
Often appears atrociously ugly.
Integrity is wholeness, the greatest beauty is
Organic wholeness, the wholeness of life and things,
the divine beauty of the universe.
Love that, not man apart from that,
or else you will share man’s pitiful confusions,
or drown in despair when his days darken.

Many people choose to create an anthropomorphic entity - a deity - to whom they attribute all the wonder around them. Many people choose to let a self-appointed clergy tell them how to worship this deity. Many people choose to become slaves to a religion, which can manifest itself in terribly cruel ways - justifying their excesses, their violence to others, their lies, their contradictions on the basis of those evils being the will of this imagined deity. They then express their gratitude for their many blessings to this deity. I choose not to follow this path.

But then, to whom should I be grateful for the many blessings provided by the universe in which it's been my good fortune to be born? I don't believe there's any being to whom I need to express my thanks. I don't believe the universe knows or cares about what I think, but to be allowed to glimpse the majesty and power begs for a target for my gratitude. The very indifference of the universe to me and my petty concerns seems to fill this disembodied spirit with something I admire. The universe has been about its "business" for billions of years before me. That "business" will continue for billions of years after me. Further, I don't feel any need to ascertain any personal meaning in the business of the universe - for me it's enough to know that I'm a player in something that I'll never understand. A part of the whole, not me apart from that whole.

What amazes me is that through processes I can't begin to fathom, I've been granted a brief time when I've become conscious that I'm a part of this majestic drama. We humans are only infinitesimal specks within this grand tapestry, but somehow, for no evident reason, we've been given the privilege of awareness of our connection to this vast process, and the curiosity to seek an understanding of it. We are self-aware matter - and I feel a deep gratitude for being given this existence. The fact that I can't express this gratitude to some being is irrelevant. But I'm grateful, nevertheless.

Chasing mythology - 1

A persistent myth associated with storm chasing is that by getting measuring systems into tornadoes, this provides data for research that ultimately will lead to saving lives. I see this myth repeated enough in media interviews to become something of a mantra for everyone out there chasing tornadoes, both privately and for actual scientific programs like VORTEX-2. It usually is coupled with the notion that such research will increase tornado warning lead times, and the result will be lives spared.

Putting scientific instruments into tornadoes involves considerable risk - we see this on the TV soap opera "Storm Chasers" on a routine basis. It's not inconceivable that chasers could be seriously injured or killed in such attempts. In fact, the more risks taken, the more likely such casualties become. But what's the potential benefit of learning more about what goes on inside tornadoes? I think obtaining such measurements is an important way to learn more about tornado dynamics. But - I have no reason to believe that an increased knowledge of tornado dynamics will have any impact whatsoever on the issue of providing improved tornado warnings!

As I've written elsewhere, tornado warnings for the types of tornadoes most likely to cause casualties are already pretty good, for the most part. Most tornado fatalities occur in association with tornadoes for which the warnings were out well in advance, rather than with those tornadoes occurring with little or no warning. Casualties from tornadoes for which no warning was given are not unheard of, unfortunately, but only comprise a relatively small minority of tornado casualties. The tornadoes most likely to cause casualties are violent, long-track tornadoes that only occur rarely without being anticipated well in advance!

Moreover, having a lot of knowledge of tornado dynamics does nothing obvious that will improve our ability to anticipate which storms will go on to produce tornadoes. It seems evident to me that studying the effect (the tornado) is not likely to provide much help without knowing a lot more about the cause (the storm that produces the tornado). The single biggest issue confronting those responsible for issuing warnings (i.e., National Weather Service forecasters) is how to recognize in advance:

(1) which storms will go on to become tornadic,
(2) when such storms will begin to produce tornadoes, and
(3) when such storms will stop producing tornadoes,

with high confidence (and accuracy). As of this moment, our attempts to do so in the real world are not always very accurate - we issue far too many false alarms because we generally prefer to warn for a storm that doesn't produce a tornado, rather than to miss putting out a warning for a storm that does become tornadic. No one ever is killed by a non-event.

This uncertainty is not about the tornadoes themselves (and their inner workings) but is all about the storms from which tornadoes are produced. If someone wants to improve tornado warnings, we need to learn precisely why most severe storms don't produce tornadoes, and how to recognize that with some reasonable degree of confidence. It's at least as difficult not to issue a tornado warning (when none is needed), as it is to issue that warning (when it's appropriate to do so).

When people justify the risks they are taking in order to obtain data inside tornadoes, it's basically not true that such research will lead to saving lives in the future. There may be perfectly valid reasons to learn about tornado dynamics, but saving lives simply isn't among them.

We scientists are freaks! - Part 3

... again, picking up the thread ...

No matter how non-scientists view us, it can't be denied that science (which arguably began in Greece, long ago) has become enormously successful. The new knowledge we've gained has made new technologies possible that have transformed our lives dramatically. Compare today's world with that of 200 years ago! The changes over the last 200 years are vastly greater than the changes over the preceding 2000 years, by far!!

Of course, some might justifiably say that many of those changes have not been for the good of humanity. Technologies have been used to cause pain and death. Some have carried with them unanticipated penalties that have been responsible for degradation and suffering. The question has been raised, "Just because it's possible to do something, does that mean we should do it?" Numerous examples come to mind: nuclear fission, genetic manipulation, global climate change, environmental destruction, etc. There are many important issues in today's world related to the use and abuse of science and its associated technology. Our world must make choices about what to do and what not to do. To make intelligent choices, people need to have an accurate understanding of the issues they confront.

It's a source of constant frustration for non-scientists to discover that science is nearly always incapable of offering black-and-white answers to vexing questions. Scientists always talk of probabilities, not certainties. They hedge their interpretations with numerous qualifications because that's the way science actually works. Scientists are not truthsayers, although they have a deep commitment to truth. We don't claim to have all the answers - in fact, we often emphasize that our knowledge is quite provisional and limited. Nevertheless, those societies which support science because of the value of its contributions, would prefer that we give them simple answers to hard questions. If the questions are simple, perhaps science can offer more compelling results, but hard questions don't lend themselves to simple answers.

There also are non-scientific aspects to many of these hard questions. Scientific understanding isn't the only important part of the modern challenges we confront. Economic aspects of these questions may be as challenging as the science. And ethical issues are almost always problematic in the "big questions" now demanding decisions. Even aesthetic concerns can be involved. At a time when the world is facing serious difficulties, it will take multidisciplinary involvement to work out satisfactory, practical solutions. I believe the pattern of scientific thinking can be a valuable tool, even when applied to other aspects of these problems. Successful scientists think for themselves, rather than blindly following the consensus, and I believe that even children not destined for careers in science need to know how to think for themselves. Scientists question the validity of assumptions. Scientists look to evidence, not preconceived ideas. Political slogans and selfish misrepresentations are rampant now, and it can be hard work to know what to believe. In these days of TV and the Internet, people are buried under an avalanche of "information" - some significant fraction of this information is just plain garbage. Children need to be taught how to sift the wheat from the chaff, to ignore the garbage and use the information to make decisions (large or small). Scientific thinking is a good pattern to follow in learning how to think for yourself.

All scientists should consider themselves to be educators, whether or not they are actually employed as such. We need to learn how to explain ourselves more effectively and to show why what we do is important. That importance is not just for society as a whole, but for every man and woman on the planet. It's ever more important for scientists to make the effort to be able to explain what they're doing to a 12-year old (which is not an easy thing to do). Unfortunately, some scientists who have made serious efforts to educate the public (Carl Sagan, Jacques Cousteau) wind up being criticized and demeaned for being "mere popularizers"! As if being a "popularizer" is some sort of inferior version of a scientist!! The need for popularizing science has never been greater.

One of the concerns I have for education is that it seems that most people come out of the process with little or no appreciation for, nor any substantial understanding of, how science works and the role it plays in their lives. They say things like "Science is boring!", or "Science is too hard for me!", or "Why should I care about science?" If this is happening as I perceive it, then something is tragically wrong with education. Children are born with natural curiosity, eager to understand the world around them. But only a few retain that child-like curiosity about the natural world for their entire lives. Most people have lost their love of learning by the time they're 12 years old. School is day prison for them, and day-care for their parents. It's a business for the educators, not a place where a new generation is imbued with a love for free inquiry. I think back to my elementary school days, and I can't recall a single teacher who reinforced my love of learning. I learned mostly at home, not at school, because what happened at school was boring, difficult, and not obviously of any interest to me. My own experiences has shown me why most people lose their love of learning - school mostly sucks!! I'm unusual because school couldn't kill my curiosity.

This mostly negative impact of education is intolerable in a world where science and technology are so important. Science is of critical importance to people if they care about the future of their society, and the world they will pass on to their children. We need better educators, and they need the resources to make science come alive for their students; to show their students why learning about how the natural world operates can add value and a sense of wonder to their lives.

For me, science has been a lifelong adventure. Going to "work" as a scientist has always seemed like play to me, and I've been able to earn a living for myself and my family in the process. I've had the chance to travel and meet fantastic people around the world because of my science. If I could, I'd take that curiosity and joy of learning I've had all my life and give it to every man, woman, and child on the planet.

We scientists are freaks! - Part 2

So to pick up the thread where I left off ...

Although I've dedicated my life to becoming a meteorologist and contributing to the process of understanding the atmosphere, I've had many other interests: geology (esp. volcanology), astronomy, arachnology (esp. spiders), history, drawing and painting, photography, journalism, certain sports, genealogy, and so on. I couldn't make all these interests the basis for my career, but I've never lost interest in them. In many ways, I see connections among all my diverse interests - as I see them, they're not separate, isolated boxes, but rather are intertwined, as described so brilliantly by Douglas Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. In effect, they're a mostly invisible part of my meteorological science ...

Science and art are very different human endeavors - what sets science apart from all other things that humans do is that we scientists have a very clear way to define progress. That is, science is focused on understanding (the root of the word science is from the Latin word for knowledge), and to gain understanding we have to solve problems, to answer questions. Science can measure its progress by the ability to provide solutions to previously unsolved problems; solutions that can work in a very tangible, even practical way, and which help to gain new understanding - understanding that did not exist before that solution was developed. Modern technology is built on the framework provided by scientific understanding. To be ignorant about science is to be ignorant of technology. To be ignorant of technology is to be ignorant about the modern world. To be ignorant about the modern world is to be irresponsible! I've worked hard all my life to find out how little I truly know. I resent those who come by their ignorance the easy way! Ignorance is not equivalent to stupidity, but to be willfully ignorant is an act of stupidity.

Although we could attempt to measure progress by means of the changes that have gone on in, say, the world of art, those changes don't represent solutions to heretofore unsolved problems. Does cubism represent progress over impressionism in painting? They're different approaches to painting, and according to one's personal taste, some might see cubism as progress, but others might dispute that cubism was progress at all! Much of modern art is only understandable when seen as a statement about the styles of art that preceded it. To the non-artist, such an abstraction is opaque and can take away no clear message from such art.

I once saw a display of art where one artist had taken a toilet, broken it into several large pieces, and mounted the fragments on a stand. I have problems with this art for at least two reasons: (1) there is no craftsmanship required to break a toilet into pieces, and (2) whatever message the artist may have been trying to express is pretty difficult to fathom. This sort of 'art' doesn't succeed in conveying much of a message to most of us, except perhaps a few "illuminati" who know the artist. It's a sort of 'inside joke' on the rest of us - the ignorant masses. Much of modern art (atonal, arythmic music, paint splashed randomly on canvas, plays that seek to have no characters and tell no story, etc.) doesn't stand on its own. Such art can only be seen as a some sort of statement within the context of earlier art.

In contrast with such art, when I listen to classical music, or I see an impressionist painting, or watch a professionally-done play (or movie), there's both craftsmanship on the part of the artist and an emotional response associated with the experience. I get a very direct sense of connection with the artist. Perhaps that sense is only an illusion, but I believe I feel something of what the artist must have felt when creating the work. The best art, in my view then, is art that anyone can understand and which triggers an emotional response. This sense of connection can span hundreds of years, can cross cultural barriers, and spans the globe when the art is capable of standing on its own.

Science, like art, involves communication. But scientific communication is dependent on expressing ourselves in a way that provides an accurate understanding of our ideas. Scientific communication is an art form, seeking to say what we intend, and avoid any misinterpretation. Unfortunately, this can make scientific papers very hard to read and comprehend. New terms must be defined very carefully. New concepts must be explained so as to avoid misinterpretation. Interpretations must include appropriate qualification, to preclude any implication of undeserved generality. The language of science is laced with jargon - this also makes it difficult for non-scientists to understand the communication between scientists, which can sound like some sort of secret code. The coding is not generally held as a secret, but it takes time and effort to read it.

During the education process I went through, I often had a sense of joy and wonder when I encountered the ideas of earlier scientists. The insight I had gained by reading about them was inspiring and crossed time and space to dazzle me with its brilliant light (the cartoon cliche about a light bulb above someone's head is not without value as an analogy). In the process I experienced an echo of the insight when it first was created by someone, perhaps long ago. The idea may have been old by the time I read it, but it was very new to me! I could only imagine at the time what it would be like to be the very first person to have such an insight.

We scientists discuss our ideas at conferences, over the Internet, over the phone, and so on, but mostly in journals that record what we have learned at regular intervals. Scientific journals are not at all a record of established facts - journals are more like diaries, recording the ideas we had along the way, in order that we all can consider those ideas within the continuing discussion that is science. Journals are more akin to a heavily-moderated forum on the Internet.

The only goal of any scientist is to gain new understanding, whereby one person's idea can inspire another to pursue a related idea and move everyone forward in the process. Science is not at all a mere collection of facts. Its ideas are always provisional - the best we might have at a particular moment, but always subject to revision by someone. Science uses logic - the ideas must satisfy logical criteria - but the basic task of science is to subject our ideas to creatively-inspired tests (which also involves developing new methods for evaluating the data from observational tests). Evidence coming from those tests can be used to evaluate competing ideas, thereby allowing the profession to arrive at a consensus regarding our understanding. That consensus is always changing, dramatically on occasions but more normally by small increments, as we develop new ideas and obtain new evidence. Science is evidence-based. The only ideas of value to science are those logically consistent ideas that can be tested on the basis of evidence.

Again, a pause ... more to come ...

We scientists are freaks!

Conversations with my friends today have brought home to me a theme I've written about in places, but never with the thoughts crystallizing in my head today. The theme is the way by which scientists are trained to think about the world. Of course, there is no simple formula for the so-called 'scientific method' but there clearly is a way to think like a scientist.

A scientist uses logic (mathematical logic, as well as classical logic) and evidence in a way that many non-scientists seem unable to do. Logic forces us to consider the logical implications of our ideas, and when logic is incapable of resolving issues, we scientists turn not to faith but to evidence. We seek to develop ways by which the evidence can help us decide the validity of some hypothesis (idea). Ideas are cheap - but it involves creativity and effort to develop meaningful ways to evaluate our ideas. Scientists don't accept arguments by authority - no matter what credentials an individual might have, they're insufficient to keep others from questioning the ideas of the most famous scientist. We have no sacred texts, full of revealed truth. Truth in science is an ideal towards which we can strive but will never achieve. Honesty is the foundation of science, any intentional dishonesty is anathema. And so on ...

Although I make no claims that science is the answer to all our problems - far from it, actually - it's a way of thinking I believe can be applied successfully in many ways. When we're confronted with a problem, there's no one way to seek solutions to that problem, but any proposed solution should be based solidly on logic and evidence. If a proposed solution is illogical, or contrary to the evidence, it can't be considered to be of much value. When societies struggle to deal with complex problems like global climate change, extremist terror, abortion rights, the national economy, genetic manipulation, evolution, and so on, it seems to me that if people are going to vote on such topics, they need to have at least some understanding of the issues. It's not enough simply to accept someone's word about important issues! People shouldn't be willing to let someone else tell them what to think - they need to know how to think it out for themselves, and then do that thinking. Ostensibly, education should provide people with the tools to do this, but the sad fact is that most people find education to be boring and consider it to be irrelevant. And in many ways, that assessment is all too true - education in the USA gets low budgets and little priority.

You may not be a global change scientist, but if 99+% of global climate change scientists accept the IPCC position on the subject, is it rational and/or logical simply to disagree with that consensus? On what basis might a non-scientist disagree with the findings of the vast majority of global climate change scientists? Are you similarly inclined to dispute Einstein's Theory of Relativity? It's not that the consensus represents some sort of sacred truth - the IPCC report is not immune from dissenting opinions, but if you're claiming it's wrong in some way, surely you can offer extraordinarily compelling evidence to support your rejection of the consensus. How many global climate change deniers have provided such irrefutable evidence? The answer to that is clear: none of them.

When you see a debate between a global climate change denier and a global climate change scientist, the odds that one of them is correct are not 50-50! If you can't evaluate the scientific arguments, then it seems to me that a logical position is to accept the arguments of someone who has 99+% of that science community behind her/him! It's not a 'coin flip' - the debaters are not on equal footing. Not by a long shot!

Most people around the world seem to be drifting away from any interest in science and the technology derived from it. This, despite the overwhelming dependence in our modern world on science and technology! How can this be happening? It seems to me that the technology most of us use is making us lazy. It's work to think. Understanding and choosing among competing ideas takes substantial effort. Apparently, it's easier just to follow some demagogue masquerading as a 'pundit'! If education is to be effective, the recipient must be a fully-engaged participant in the process, no matter what the topic - no matter how good or bad the teacher might be. Education is not something we inflict on young people, it's a process they should understand and know how to continue for the rest of their lives! It's a commitment to learning no matter what the topic and without regard to the teacher's abilities.

One of my friends said it well - "We scientists are freaks!" For many of us, science necessarily is a lifelong dedication to gaining new understanding. And most of us are not only interested in science. Many of us are serious students of history, or some art, or journalism, or other topics. We are the most well-rounded people in my circle of acquaintances - how many artists do you know who are seriously involved in a hobby related to some science? I'm very proud of being associated with people who are likely to be capable thinkers and learners in many areas, not just their technical specialties.

I have much more to say on this, so I'll continue in my next posting.

Experiencing the Mediterranean

Yesterday, a friend of mine took me with him on an afternoon jaunt to Port de Valldemossa, on the northern coast of Mallorca. I'd been there before and looked forward to a return on a warm, sunny fall day. We arrived to find the place more crowded than I'd ever seen it - apparently others had a similar idea!

After parking, we sauntered along the jetty, which includes a boat ramp on one end, and the other end creates a small part of the bay that is sheltered from the waves by a breakwater, that's made of concrete, with large rocks piled up, facing the ocean. My friend Alan mentioned as we ambled along the jetty that the place where we were walking was wet, a clear sign that we might be getting soaked by the waves crashing along the breakwater. But we remained standing at the end of the jetty in the warm sun, chatting about nothing particularly meaningful for a few minutes.

Then a large wave hit the breakwater and some seawater rolled over the concrete, spending its energy as it spread out and stopped its progress in front of our feet. Seconds later, another larger wave hit the breakwater - this time, the seawater surged completely over the jetty, but only to a depth of about 1/4 of an inch on the concrete. This was followed almost immediately by an even larger wave, that sent a wall of water over the breakwater that was at least 3 meters high! This slammed into us, knocking Alan off his feet, and pushing both of us steadily toward the 1 meter dropoff into the harbor!! I was still standing and I felt the power of the breaking wave sliding me along the concrete so I instinctively dropped to my hands and knees, which reduced the area of my body facing the wave's power and I came to a stop less than a meter from the edge. The wave washed past us into the harbor.

We stood up, and took stock. We were thoroughly soaked with sea water - I could taste the salt. My very expensive camera was pretty wet, Alan's cell phone had been in his pocket and also was quite wet ... and a group of people on the harbor shore were looking at us. Perhaps they were stifling their laughter at our obvious stupidity. Perhaps they were concerned for our safety. But they said nothing. Alan and I looked at each other - and burst out laughing! We were O.K. and had simply behaved stupidly enough to have been caught precisely by the very situation we had anticipated but foolishly ignored.

We hung around the port for quite a while after that, having moved to a position where we were no longer threatened by the wave action. I did some photography - my camera turned out to be still working with no apparent problems. Alan's cell phone also worked. We were in the sun, hoping that our clothes would dry out, which they did to some extent. I had scraped my knee on the concrete and had a small trickle of blood to show for our experience - Alan scraped his elbow and had a similar trickle. Eventually, we retired to the bar for a beer, laughed about our soaking in the Mediterranean Sea, and imagined how the story might grow with the telling (enormous megalodon sharks circling in the harbor below the 30 meter drop to the harbor, waiting for us to become their next meal, my lower leg severed by the force of the 40 meter tsunami, Alan's arm hanging by a few threads, etc.)

We can laugh at ourselves, so we did. But in the final analysis, we were simply stupid, and a relatively modest wave showed us the enormous power of moving water in a way that was only embarrassing, not life-threatening. I hope I make no similar mistakes in the future, but ...

And here I am yet again!

Coming back to Mallorca once again has been a really good thing! My trips here before each have been different, and this one is no exception. Some things remain the same: the beauty of this place and the warmth of those who live here - and some things change: almost all the students I knew here in 2003/4 have (thanks to their efforts) graduated and moved on to new things in their lives. I miss them, and wish them all the best.

I'm living in an apartment that is one floor down and across the stairwell from where I lived in Bunyola last time. The Bar Paris is still about 30 meters from the front door of the building, but my friend Jaime (the owner) is no longer running the place - he is renting it to a new team. It has a different ambience, now, without Jaime. I ran into him over the weekend in Cafe Central - he drives a taxi on weekends and I suppose he is in a position similar to mine: semi-retirement. One of his friends told me he has a room just chock-full of money!! I wonder if he's actually well-to-do. I hope so!!

I'm still in the process of settling in, and likely will do some traveling about with my camera as time permits. I hope to swim in the Mediterranean this time - since most of my trips here have been in winter, I've not done that yet!

It is such a great thing to have a chance to be with my UIB friends again: Arnau Amengual, Romu Romero, Victor Homar, Sergio Alonso, Clemente Ramis. It's as if no time at all has gone by since last we met. Although I did see Victor's family on my first day here - Tony is growing up fast and Annie is a beautiful new addition (born nearly the same time as my granddaughter, Teresa) - so I can see the passage of time clearly. But my friends have aged well, and nearly look the same.

This lovely island will always be special to me! You can never completely re-create experiences of the past, but new experiences are inevitable, and I look forward to those!

Our best friends

We here in the USA still are blessed with an incredible gift from our founders ... the Bill of Rights and Freedom of Speech, in particular. With all of the angst ongoing around the world over such things as terrorism, violent crime, educational system failures, bigotry of all sorts, economic downturns, peak oil, environmental disasters, white collar crime ... the list goes on and on ... we here in the USA currrently are having an extended, intense 'conversation' on all these topics via the media (including the Internet). Viewpoints across a broad spectrum are being voiced and heard, the issues are being explored and debated, and at least some of us are being stimulated to think about the issues, possibly even modifying our positions with regard to them on the basis of what we've heard and learned from others.

For some reason, today I feel encouraged by all of this ferment. I'm pleased to see that Freedom of Speech still is alive and well, despite the fact that some of those being allowed to speak their minds would seek to abolish that freedom were they to gain power. Extremists of all sorts have been part of human society virtually from its very beginnings, and some well-intentioned folks are moved to limit the Freedom of Speech, ostensibly to prevent these extremists from destroying all our freedoms. I hope you can see the flaw in that argument - it reminds me of the comment from some Army officer during our vain military intervention in Vietnam: "We had to destroy that village in order to save it!" If we succumb to fear so thoroughly that we sacrifice our freedom to save it, then those who seek to destroy those freedoms will have succeeded and we'll have helped them to do it! It was Ben Franklin himself who said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Fortunately, we can continue to carry on the many heated debates we're seeing within our deeply divided citizenry. Many, perhaps most, people with a viewpoint see their opponents in the debate as enemies to be overwhelmed, put down, and even silenced. This is simply an erroneous perspective. As I've been saying to my students for many years, "Your most severe critic is your best friend!" Why do I say that? Because your critics will assail vigorously whatever you say, perhaps finding logical loopholes and contradictions you missed. You'll be forced to refine your viewpoint ever farther. Some of your critics will fail to understand properly what you're saying, so their criticisms will reveal ways by which you can clarify your position, thereby expanding the range of folks who can grasp and contemplate what you're asserting.

Unfortunately, sometimes your severest critics are just - there's no point in being PC - morons. An illogical or irrational argument is of no value to you. I recommend you simply walk away from engaging in debates with morons. There's little to be gained, there. Even moronic arguments have the right to be voiced and heard, of course. I'm perfectly content with letting such points be made and then letting others decide for themselves that they're moronic. My default position is that I assume you can recognize a moronic argument when you see it. You won't need me to point out the flaws. The source of a moronic argument is virtually certain to have a closed mind on the topic, and if you discover that to be the case, then further discussion is pointless.

Far from seeing my opponents in a debate as my enemies, I embrace them as my friends, even if they choose not to reciprocate. Intolerance for the viewpoints of others is a dangerous attitude to have, especially when demagogues seek to wrap themselves in patriotism and religious fervor and use that to set people against each other. This is the Orwellian vision immortalized in the novel 1984. That year came ... and went ... without a descent into that nightmarish world. I'd like to think that one reason that prediction for the future failed to eventuate is that we in the USA have not yet succumbed to paranoid delusions of how our enemies will destroy us from within, so we have not yet abandoned our commitment to the Bill of Rights.

Fear-mongers among us seek to gain power by trading on concerns for our safety in order to abrogate the freedoms currently enjoyed by their opponents. If we are confident that our national commitment to freedom is the right path, then we should not give in to fear of those who might threaten that freedom and do their dirty work for them!

The polarizing issue of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is a classic example of how fear is being exploited by extremists on both sides of the debate. Muslim terrorists are exploiting the fears of muslims around the world that the west is seeking to destroy islam. Christian extremists are exploiting the acts of a small number of muslim extremists to sow fear of all muslims. When people feel they're likely to be attacked, it's natural to respond in ways that would sacrifice freedom for security. We as a nation have a bad history of doing so in times of actual war, sadly. There are groups on both sides who see this growing paranoia as a means to gain power - I suppose most such demagogues don't actually want outright war, although that might not be true of all such. They just want the fear to be perpetuated, the bogeyman to remain just outside the door, and to be kept at bay by the "inspired leadership" of the demagogues.

So long as the arguments we're having are loud and public, I'm feeling reasonably good about this nation. I have confidence that the majority of our citizens will not be swayed by the ravings of extremists. Let them rant! Our freedoms are the envy of many people around the world. It's those very freedoms that extremists would repeal, so I think we need to calm down a bit and recognize that our opponents in an argument aren't evil monsters that we should seek to silence. They can be our best friends!!

Do you even have a clue?

Tonight, I was watching some TV programs about geophysical hazards: earthquakes and dust storms, in particular. It occurred to me that most viewers of such programs likely consider it unlikely that they would experience such monumental dislocations as a major earthquake or a 'black blizzard' of the sort that people in the Dust Bowl of the 1930s went through. They can't begin to imagine what it might be like because they feel secure in their 'normalcy bias' - "It hasn't happened to me yet, so it won't ever happen to me!" Are you willing to bet your life on that?

Listen up, folks - there's a non-zero probabilty that you could experience a geophysical hazard of such monumental proportions you'd be very unlikely to survive it! Most of you can't even begin to imagine what might be in store for you. Yeah, sure - the odds that any one of you in particular will have to deal with such a geophysical disaster are relatively low. Be thankful for that! If you should be unlucky enough to be there when terrible things happen, and you manage to live through it, you'll never have the same sense of security you had before. Your sense of invulnerability on this uncertain planet is completely without justification! There's no security here! Earth is not a world without risk - a world in which your sense of security is justified.

Rather, your continued existence is only as a statistical accident. For most people, most of the time, you're O.K. But there are no guarantees - the security you feel can be withdrawn without notice, at any time. Deadly weather (tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, heat waves, blizzards, extreme cold, dust storms, etc.), deadly geophysical hazards (earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, avalanches, tsunamis, etc.), and astrophysical disasters (asteroid and comet impacts, solar storms, etc.) can occur without warning, snuffing out your life and/or your existence as you currently know it suddenly and with little or no advance notice. Yeah, it's unfair, but in the physical world, fairness is not at all guaranteed.

Our planet is not some place that protects you from all hazards, and there is no certainty that you personally will not someday experience catastrophic events from the known hazards that can happen on this planet. If you believe you live on a benign world, secure from deadly hazards, then you will do nothing to prepare for such hazards - and you may well die as a direct result of your ignorance and your erroneous sense of security. Ignorance is not bliss in this real world. Rather, your ignorance can be directly related to your vulnerability to geophysical hazards.

If you don't believe me, go ahead and assume it will never happen to you. Continue to wrap yourself in your bogus security blanket - but don't blame me if you're unlucky! - caught unprepared when some geophysical hazard blows you and your loved ones away. Being prepared is associated with recognizing your vulnerability. Ignore that at your peril!