It’s official

I have the weirdest fans on the planet. All the atheists have their somber talking heads and interview clips, meanwhile, I’ve got this, courtesy of the Mad Aussie.

TIA#3 is definitely Spacebunny’s favorite. She just walked into my office saying “Bow-tch-bow-bow-tch-bow-bow”. It’s probably just as well Richard Dawkins is doing his best to ignore TIA, I can’t even imagine what the old guy make of one of these videos. I actually recorded a short spoken bit a few weeks ago, intending to YouTube it, but I’m terrified of letting Jaime get his hands on it.

The threat to veterinary science

The wife of a vet writes about the dilemma facing veterinary practices:

I appreciate your columns and often forward them to others. My husband will be receiving the one on the threat of women to real science. He is a veterinarian who graduated from vet school in 1967. He has 9 years of college science: a BS, a DVM and a post-doc degree. His graduating class of 57 had about 8 women in it. Now the vet school has about 100 per class and about 8 of them are men. Women work when it is convenient for them, as many of them go on to become wives and mothers. Because they work part time, they do not expect, nor get, the kind of wage that a male head of household needs to bring home. This depresses the wage level for the rest of the vets. Men are leaving the profession – at meetings, the attendance is mostly women and a few graying men. It is almost impossible for his boss to find a relief veterinarian to fill in so someone can go on vacation or keep a medical appt. Practices are for sale – and no one is trying to buy them. Women are very good at medicine, but men are the ones who pick up the animals to put them on the exam tables and who seem to know that you cannot take all day to decide on what course of action to take with a difficult case. In time, women won’t go into the profession either: coming out of school with $80,000 in debt and not being able to make that amount of money in a year or a year and a half is not much of a prospect. As my husband says, “I don’t get paid enough to know what I have to know to do this.” He repairs a cruciate for a small fraction of what it costs to have it done on a human – same with hip repair, ovariohysterectomy, etc., etc.

This is an interesting email because it corresponds with my own anecdotal evidence. The lady closely describes the situation of a friend of Spacebunny’s, who happens to be a married, former part-time vet who only practiced for four or five years. But at least the vet schools are selling more paper, that’s good for the economy, right?

Bad Astronomy, good logic

But is the end result garbage or not? Bad Astronomy asks for a direct response, ergo he receives one:

Where did I say matter had anything to do with equality?

You didn’t, it was implied in your inaccurate statement that “evolutionary biology does in fact explain our concepts of justice, equality, and freedom”. Feel free to correct me if I am incorrect and you believe either 1) equality is a material substance, or, 2) you believe that equality does not exist. Otherwise, my assumption that you believe in the existence of an immaterial thing called equality stands. Do let us know your position on the matter.

You were the one conflating our not knowing what makes up dark matter and energy with abstract concepts of justice and equality, not me.

Absolutely. That’s why I said that you didn’t “realize that science is undermining the basis for materialism.” I certainly don’t hold you responsible for things I am saying you don’t realize.

And you were wrong in your premise and your application.

As for the premise, that’s possible, of course it was based entirely upon your initial statement. If that premise is wrong, then logical conclusion is wrong too, naturally. So, are you now saying that it is not true that “everything you can see, taste, hear, touch, just sense in any way… is less than 5% of the whole Universe”? I presume you are now saying that what cannot be sensed in any way can nevertheless be observed. Have these observations of dark matter and dark energy taken place since 2004, when this list of scientists declared that “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.”?

Let’s just cut to the chase, BA. Are dark energy and dark matter material or immaterial phenomena?

It’s entirely possible that I’m wrong, of course. If dark energy and dark matter are material phenomena, then one can’t reasonably use them to criticize belief in the existence of other phenomena that are not material. My impression, based on your statement about how we cannot sense 95 percent of the universe in any way, was that dark matter and dark energy are immaterial. This impression was supported by the statements of other scientists and by the nomenclature; not being a cosmologist, I simply make use of the information I am provided.

Heroes on a halfshell

Turtle Power! And going back even further, here’s an interesting bit on doing Nintendo ports before the days of 8-bit power.

The Open Letter

Disenchanted ex-richarddawkins.netter Dominic Saltarelli draws our attention to a group of cosmologists who would appear to agree with my position on the need for science reform:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory….

n open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

This letter was published four years ago, so I’m curious whether both Bad Astronomy and the signers of the letter are correct and that dark matter and dark energy have been observed in the intervening time, whether the signers are incorrect and they had been observed previously, or whether Bad Astronomy was incorrect and it has not been observed. I should appreciate it if anyone with the appropriate credentials would deign to explain this seeming dichotomy.

It’s interesting, too, to see that so many self-identified skeptics so readily abandon all skepticism whenever the magic word “science” is mentioned. The ironic reality is that doubt is usually honored by Christians, but it cannot be tolerated by scientists.

On a related note, the latest scientific charade is beginning to fall apart. Scientists and science fetishists may hate it that a part-time rebel scientist such as myself should so confidently express contempt for the current consensus, but you don’t need impressive scientific credentials or even to make use the scientific method to recognize when a group of people are attempting to BS everyone else, you simply need to keep your eyes open and possess sufficient experience with human nature.

After three days of what the chairman called “the kind of free-spirited debate that is virtually absent from the global warming alarmist camp”, the 500 delegates issued the Manhattan Declaration, stating that attempts by governments to reduce CO2 emissions would “markedly diminish further prosperity” while having “no appreciable impact” on the Earth’s warming.

This inevitably attracted the kind of hysterical abuse that has become so familiar from warmist fanatics, tellingly contrasting with the measured arguments put forward by the scientists present. One was Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who last year famously forced Nasa’s Goddard Institute to correct a fundamental error in its data on US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.

As I have said from the very start, Global Warming is nothing more than another science fraud designed to foster greater central government power. It’s not the first, it won’t be the last. The first clue should have been that the greatest champion was a politician turned propagandist. I’m just surprised that it’s taken the real scientists so long to unmask the charlatans. Note that even as its scientific justification fails, the Fourth Reich is taking a page from both the warmingmongers and the New Atheists in trying to blame nonexistent Global Warming for imaginary wars.

The secular summing-up

Big Bill encapsulates the inevitable decline of secular society:

Bottom line, science roolz and y’all are going extinct. Why? You don’t make babies, and the Muslims and evil Christians and Jews do. “God” tells them to.

You manufacture and live in such a materialistic, mechanistic, consumerist world that your own women don’t want to bear your children, they would rather scr*w a vibrating battery-powered plastic stick if they want to come rather than take a risk at having more than 1.2 of your children, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 kids.

You are right in one respect: humans are just animals and have the moral significance in the Universe (sans God) of pond scum. Thing is, having established that, your women don’t want to collectively waste their lives squirting out and raising the moral equivalent of pond scum when the alternative is Having Sex, Eating Food, and Buying Fun Stuff.

Succinct. Vulgar. Accurate. In a word, brilliant. And speaking of succinct, Sam Harris has responded to my list of seven questions for him derived from TIA. I’ll post them once I have his permission to do so; his answers are candid and somewhat surprising. One thing that has been settled is that the man is not intellectually dishonest, he clearly didn’t know about the electoral data that turns his Red State argument on its head.