Astronauts Read Fantasy

In what is perhaps not a huge surprise, astronauts read fantasy novels. I made this discovery myself, though I don't know if it's been made by others before me.

Evidence: See the floating book on the space shuttle. See the purple book on the bottom of the stack of fantasy novels.

Reason Magazine Betrays Their Eponymity

I'm in favor of articles like these, wherein a major news outlet is criticized for poor journalism. On the other hand, it seems Reason itself needs to reassess its commitment to, er, reason. I'm not trashing the article as a whole, as in fact the internal logic and overall quality of evidence seemed to me convincing enough in general, at least at a glance. However, the section on obesity doesn't measure up to its peers. It's flawed, and obviously so, in ways I intend to prove.

"But the science proved hard for the panic to overcome. In 2005, a team of CDC researchers published a study finding significant flaws with the 400,000 figure. The real number, they said, was closer to 112,000." [link in original]

Yes, overestimating the figure by a factor of four is a serious problem. Still, 112,000 is still quite a few individuals, wouldn't you say? What might be the context for this sort of figure? In other words, what is the threshold for an acceptable level of corpulence? To put the idea of perspective into, uh, perspective, the United States suffers about 30,000 suicides every year, and about 40,000 deaths due to automobile accidents every year. So now the 112,000 figure looks enormous. Yet a minute ago Reason made it look small by comparing it to a poorer estimate of itself.

"And when you add in the protective effects of being mildly overweight, the number drops to 26,000."

There two unsubstantiated claims here, both of which are remarkable. Remarkable claims demand proof with evidence and reason, and none are offered. First of all, what exactly are the "protective effects" of being overweight, aside from, I suppose, resistance to starvation? The clinical definitions of terms such as "overweight" and "obese," as I understand them, are carefully chosen by medical science. They are unhealthy conditions by definition. If there are also benefits to being overweight, of such efficacy that they offset the deathcount by 75% (112K down to 26K), one would think that there would be more information somewhere. If there is, Reason has unreasonably chosen to withold it. Moreover the 26,000 figure itself is entirely unsubsantiated.

"As for medical costs, a 2008 Dutch study suggests what would seem to be intuitive: People who live longer tend to incur more lifetime medical expenses. Meaning that if obesity does modestly shorten lifespans, it does so at a savings to taxpayer-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid."

Misuse of context! Ten yards and loss of down! The Dutch study's cost-benefits model is entirely based on being Dutch. From that study: "Except for relative risk values, all input parameters of the simulation model were based on data from The Netherlands." Reason is attempting to tear down Time's claim that obesity is a problem in the United States. The hilarious thing is, I don't even have to prove that the Netherlands is substantially different from the US in relevant ways, as I suspect it is; the serious flaw in their reasoning is that they assume the study's conclusion is as valid here as it is there.

Feh, Reason. They make a mockery of the word.

The Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

It appears that public opinion, and therefore public policy, is slowly tilting towards action regarding climate change. This means that the general public of the United States is finally accepting the scientific consensus regarding the changing climate of the Earth. Different polls show different percentages, but it would appear that a substantial number of Americans now believe that:

1. The Earth's climate is experiencing a slow, long-term warming trend.
2. This trend has been caused by human activity, mostly the emission of carbon dioxide by modern industrialized countries.
   
3. This trend will have substantial negative consequences for the Earth's environment and the human species.
   

You can read for yourself about what Americans believe on this subject in a few places. Unfortunately these polls also show that a substantial proportion of the general public also disbelieves the scientific consensus. Some even deny that such a consensus exists in the first place.

This is unfortunate, considering that the opinion of the scientific community is almost unanimous regarding global warming. You can read about the details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

And if you don't trust wikipedia, follow the evidence to their sources; there are far too many to include them here. Every credible scientific association, including every national science academy of the industrialized world, believes the above enumerated statements about global warming. I think the one exception is the American Association of Petroleum(!!) Geologists, whose position on the issue isn't actually hostile, but rather neutral and even weakly supportive. The last remaining dissent of any relevance appears to be the opinions of a few scattered individual scientists.

Why then does the magnitude of this consensus carry so little force with those who doubt?

My Facebook Aversion

I have a bunch of "Friend Requests" and I'm never going to act on them. The reason is, I hate Facebook. Well, sorta. Not the service itself; The truth is, Facebook-the-service is actually pretty cool. Look at all the neat things we can do with it. We can talk to eachother, share pictures, and arrange ourselves in social networks. I hear there are games and other amusements.

Yet I refuse to use any of these. I'm only here so I can read my girlfriend's blog. Oh, except it's not called a blog, it's "Notes". Anyway.

I'm not opposed to social networking as an idea. I'm opposed to the way it's implemented. Consider what Facebook really-truly is -- a service offered by a for-profit corporation. I don't want my friendships defined and mediated by a single for-profit corporation.

Think of all the other ways you can talk to your friends -- the mail is a government agency subject to influence by the democratic process. My Verizon phone can call any phone number in the world regardless of what company is providing service to the receiving phone. Email can fly easily from my gmail account to my friends' accounts regardless of what company owns the servers in between. My actual blog (http://tomkolson.blogspot.com/) is visible by the entire internet -- any person with any web browser can read what I have to say.

Not so with Facebook nor the other social networking sites. If I want to use Facebook to talk to my friends, my friends have to be on Facebook too. Say I discover that Facebook Inc (the company that sells Facebook, the service) is doing something horrible with their profits. How do I boycott a company who is controlling access to my closest friends?

So, that's the reason I don't have many Facebook Friends.

Addendum - I tried several times to tell all the pending friend requests that I wasn't going to be accepting, but Facebook made me to through its captcha thingy every time. Ick.

A Small Start

For people who want to know more about the world around us, with an inclination towards seeing around all the hype, spin, misconceptions, and outright lies, here's a good place to start:

http://www.straightdope.com/

I especially like repeatedly bouncing on the random column button:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/random

I think their hit-rate for relevance is pretty good, based on an admittedly unrigorous study (clicking the Random Column button and repeatedly being fascinated for the last ten or fifteen minutes). I had particularly good luck when I got:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1789/why-cant-felons-vote

Blogging Again

I've decided to start blogging again. The major reason for doing so is to rectify my own personal ignorance. I realized during the recent elections that I didn't have much trustworthy information about the candidates' positions, personal histories, nor even voting records. Moreover, I wouldn't say I'm sufficiently knowledgeable regarding the world generally. The bald truth of it is that an ignorant person cannot vote responsibly.

I feel I owe humanity some kind of restitution. Since my sin was ignorance of the relevant parts of reality, it seems right in a poetic sort of way that I should atone by accumulating and transmitting useful knowledge.

So, I'm blogging again. I hope it does some good, to myself if no one else.

This Blog is Ended

I don't think I'm really interested in blogging anymore. I'm not really sure why or else I'd explain it.

I guess I'll close with a quote from one of the best people in the world:

"When you look at the world with the eyes of compassion, you suffer much less."