Defense of Truth

O sociologists of fractal iterations of unmeasurable categories and of clever designs of dubious methodologies, you have inspired post #2 today.  Apparently it takes a "scientist" to turn the obvious on its ear and use a "study" to show that up is down.  This is easily accomplished when a gaggle of atheist PhDs put their heads together to design a way to disprove God.  Wait, that's not actually a scientific question, and they'd be flouting the fundamental boundaries of their own discipline to do so, making their credentials fairly worthless, so I guess they'll have to disprove the benefits of religiosity then--that's quantifiable, right?  Yes, religiosity!  It's something people have or they don't.  It's something that motivates some people, and not others.  It's something we can test--doesn't matter that some religious beliefs are more founded than others, that some religious beliefs produce behaviors that others don't, th...

My Facebook has been a tour de force of twisted logic, leaping to conclusions, extreme aversion to context and rigor in comparison, and ignorance over the last few days.  Sin is still sin, the definition of nothing changed, but in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US, the LDS Church was now in the position of having to clarify a policy on how to deal with "families" and individuals from those families in a new edit to their leadership handbook.  The edits drew skewed headlines ranging from insinuations of homophobia (NYT: " Mormons Sharpen Stand Against Same-Sex Marriage " - no, they didn't--the stand is the same: it's sinful, and the LGBT is still welcome and invited to join and participate fully as long as they repent, just like with every other sin) to open accusations of homophobia, with a dash of xenophobia and even a little pedophobia thrown in just for good measure (WaPo: " Mormon Church to exclude children of same-sex ...

Bill Nye's a science guy, right?  Well, I mean, an electrical engineer entertainer familiar enough with science to produce a popular kid's show and get all kinds of speaking appointments to discuss scientific principles and knowledge counts, right?  Sure!  Why not? Well, it turns out that while he may be accurate on his science, what he does next with the facts runs counter to the pursuit of truth science is aimed for in the first place.  It's a tactic he's used to.  He's used it in global warming and against young earth creationism .  But it's still sophistry to carefully move the goalposts to make your debate opponent seem like he's missing the target when he's spot on. Here's what I mean: 1. This video begins with the truth that the union of sperm and ova is a necessary but insufficient condition for the development of a fetus.  Fair point, right?  That's a question of science, and science has answered it, so he's in-bounds at thi...

I can't hold it in any longer.  There has to be an outlet for what's been bottled up too long.  I've waited and waited to liberate the words.  The waiting required some discipline and strength, but now that I have the facts, the need to withhold judgment is past.  I kept an open mind, keeping suspicions carefully labeled as suspicions, and treating contrary opinions as possible.  But now, there's no more I can learn than the truth, so I must engage and I must submit to it.  It compels me to share, to address the fence-sitters in my audience to choose a side--the one the truth is on.  The one I'm on. There's a reason we have Grand Juries.  It's a system that evolved over time.  It doesn't guarantee that mistakes don't happen or that rigging the game doesn't occur.  But it does offer some structural guarantee that a filter passes between law enforcement and the judicial system.  It empowers ordinary citizens to review evidence an...

I've replied to politically posts as a way to stay passively engaged, but haven't made a positive political contribution on this or my personal Facebook page throughout the whole election cycle.  I have felt as strongly, and have felt pangs of conscience for not getting out and participating more, or at least being bold about what I believe.  It feels rather like I'm hiding it: I'm not, it's just not my time.  I made a conscious decision to put some other priorities ahead, even though I feel strongly that this was a super important election and the chance to turn the tide of some severely menacing trends in the halls of power was missed. And the failure has been blinding on the conservative side. Pundits have had their say now for a few weeks, and most of the conservatives right away have blamed Romney himself as a candidate.  They had been carrying water for him despite having worked against him in the primaries, and as soon as it was evident that he wasn't g...

News outlets and blogosphere posters have been abuzz with comments and analysis on portions of Obama's recent speech in which he asserts something Elizabeth Warren did mere months ago in her bid to win election of the Massachusetts senate seat currently occupied by Scott Brown.  It has to do with what it takes for a business to succeed, and because of the polarized nature of the political atmosphere, the speech portions of both have taken on such an ideologically charged air, that I feel the subject is getting thought through askance.  There are a few important aspects I feel are getting lost in the war of implications between partisans accusing each other of missing the other's point, which I hope to draw out. First the relevant speech portions: Elizabeth Warren, Sept 2011:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcFDF87-SdQ and President Obama, Jul 2012:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-obama-if-youve-got-a-business-you-didnt-build-that-somebody-else-made-th...

So for a while now I've been seeing some charts put out by the Obama campaign to try to sway independents on issues they think they're vulnerable to Romney on, as the presumptive nominee at this point.  I've been waiting on commentary from the conservative blogosphere and talk radio, but not a lot has been forthcoming.  The charts look damning for Republicans, until you put them in context.  This is the way to beat all liberal thought, I've decided: just find the context they've conveniently elided, and they come undone themselves. I'm just going to tackle the recent one now on oil production under Obama. So here goes... Chart 1: http://secure.assets.bostatic.com/frontend/projects/energy-info/img/energygraph2.jpg Wow, we've been boosting production.  Except, the context is this: drilling moratoriums in the gulf, the keystone pipeline stalled, and frequent bad-mouthing of fossil fuels (including cap-and-tax proposals) on the part of Obama...