Monthly Archives: August 2007

Gallup poll and evolution folly

Posted on by

Scientific truth is not determined by a popular opinion. it wouldn’t matter if 99% of the American public believed that the sun revolved around the earth—instead of the other way around. Such poll results would have absolutely no effect on the behavior of the sun and the earth.

When it comes to the subject of evolution, despite the distortions you may have read elsewhere, evolution is an established scientific fact. It is as much of a fact as gravity, or black holes, or atoms and molecules.

Have you actually seen gravity? How do you know it really exists? Couldn’t the reason we feel the apparent pull of gravity be due instead to some supernatural force that we don’t understand? How do you know that atoms truly exist and, more importantly, that atoms behave the way scientists say they do? On what basis do you accept the idea that black holes, whatever they may be exactly, exist in outer space?

My guess is that the overall answer to such questions is that, when it comes to such matters, you accept the consensus reached by the scientists that work in these fields. You may not understand the physics of gravity or atoms or black holes. But that does not lead you to dispute their existence. In fact, it is largely because of your lack of understanding, because you have not made the effort to study the facts yourself, that you defer to the experts who have done so.

The truth of a scientific theory also doesn’t depend upon whether or not you are pleased with its conclusions. You may not be happy to discover that you can get HIV from having unprotected sex. You may be irritated to learn that you cannot cure severe depression simply by telling a person to “Cheer up;” medication may be required to help the person. But your unhappiness and irritation does not change anything.

All of this applies in the same way to evolution. You may be offended by the idea that humans are descended from apes. You may find it difficult to understand how the process of natural selection could account for the range of species on the planet today. But such offense and incomprehension has no bearing on the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

Unfortunately, although the above logic is indisputable, people somehow are willing to make an exception for evolution. The same person that would never think of denying the scientific evidence that links HIV to AIDS or that supports the existence of black holes in outer space—has no problem making such an assertion about evolution.

The data in this regard are staggering. According to recent Gallup polls, close to 50% of all people surveyed say that they “do not believe in evolution.” This is consistent with similar surveys taken over the past several years. I am sure that much of the reason for this, aside from what I have already said, is that people view evolution as in conflict with their religious beliefs. Forced to make a choice, they go with religion.

For the scientific community, such poll results are equivalent to finding out that 50% of the American public does not believe in gravity. On the one hand, the poll results are a depressing statement about the state of scientific education in our country. On the other hand, it has no bearing as to whether or not gravity really exists.

Scientific assertions based on ignorance of the relevant science (how many people that say that they don’t believe in evolution have actually studied the evidence?) or on religious prejudices is not a particularly effective way to get to the truth. It doesn’t work for deciding on the veracity of gravity, black holes, atoms, or AIDS. And it doesn’t work for evolution.

Phony appeal to “fairness” in California Electoral College initiative…and more

Posted on by

As described in this New York Times editorial, a “sneaky Republican initiative” in California is really a wolf wearing sheep’s clothing. It essentially says that California’s electoral votes for President should be split among candidates based on the percentage of votes each candidate gets. It claims to be seeking a more equitable arrangement than the current system of all votes going to one candidate — even if that candidate, for example, gets only one more vote than his or her opponent.

I agree with the Republican’s sentiment. But I also agree with the Times’ position. I would very much like to see a shift in how the electoral college works — a shift very similar to what is being proposed. However, I would want it only if it were done nationwide, not just in California. By being selective, it allows for Republican’s to get more electoral votes in a state usually won by Democrats while taking no such risks in reverse in states usually won by Republicans.

Let’s be clear. If this sort of system was in play nationwide back in 2000, or if the Electoral College was abandoned altogether in favor of a direct popular vote, Bush never would have become president. I doubt this is what the proponents of this California initiative have in mind. Don’t be fooled by the phony rhetoric. There is nothing fair about this proposal.

Regional primaries: another good idea. Speaking of revising how presidential elections work: I’d also welcome a change in the primary election format. Currently, every state seems to be racing to be among the first in the nation to hold their primary, so that the state will be “important” in determining who gets the nomination. The result is a front-loaded system which forces candidates to bounce around the country like a pinball in an arcade game — and which awards the nomination to a candidate before the voters have really had a chance to see how the candidate stands up to the rigors of a primary season. A far better solution would be to divide the country into five groups of ten states each, with each group containing states that are geographically near each other while maintaining an approximately equal number of combined electoral votes. We would then hold 5 regional primaries, one for each of the 5 groups, each held a month apart. The order of the primaries would vary with every election, so that over 5 elections, each group would get one shot at being the first primary of the season.

Good-bye to Gonzales and Rove

Posted on by

At last! In an apparent final attempt to clean house before Labor Day, President Bush has accepted the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It’s the matching bookend for the resignation of Karl Rove a few weeks ago. Both have done severe damage to the idea that the executive branch of the government and the Justice Department should have a higher calling than simply keeping Republicans in power and rewarding their friends. The resignations should not mean that the investigations into their potentially illegal activities should come to an end. Unfortunately, they may ultimately have this effect. Even so, this is far better than if they did not resign at all.

Rove and Gonzales just don’t get it. I am reminded of a quote from an interview with Rove, covered in the New York Times. In responding to criticism of his “single-minded pursuit of his goal of a ‘durable’ Republican majority,” he replied: “With all due respect, don’t you think they would like to have a durable Democratic majority and put us as an un-durable minority?”

Yes. I am certain Democrats would like that very much. But there is a difference between what you would like and the lengths to which you are willing to go to achieve what you would like. The ends don’t always justify the means.

To me, a permanent majority of either party sounds dangerously close to a dictatorship. Both parties should always feel that any majority is in danger of collapsing if the majority fails to perform to the public’s satisfaction.

But even a semi-permanent majority, of the sort Rove might have welcomed, should depend on laudatory accomplishments of the prevailing party—not a series of political manipulations and power grabs and barely concealed attempts to subvert the intent of the Constitution itself. I am referring to manipulations and power grabs such as the federal prosecutor firings scandal that has now forced Gonzales from office.

Even if these resignations do nothing more than put at least a temporary stop to these excesses, they will have had a huge positive effect on the political climate in this country.

Hollywood: Give up on DRM

Posted on by

Check out this ars technica article. It describes the lengths that Hollywood is more than willing to go to prevent piracy of its movies from Blue-Ray and HD-DVD discs. For example, to prevent such content from being copied when played on a computer, decrypted video cannot “be present on any User-Accessible Bus in analog or unencrypted, compressed form,” because users might otherwise find a way to record such content. And that’s just one of several DRM (Digital Rights Management) “robustness rules” with which Hollywood wants to burden companies such as Microsoft and Apple.

I fully expect that the end result of this (as has been the case with previous Draconian DRM measures) will be that legitimate users get punished more than any potential pirates. We users will be punished via the increased cost of the hardware and software needed to enforce these rules as well as the increased inconvenience of the restrictions that prevent us from accessing the content in ways that are or should be perfectly legal.

Hollywood folks aren’t even willing to entertain (pardon the pun) the idea that maybe, just maybe, after I have purchased the VHS version of a movie, purchased the DVD of the same movie, and then purchased it again to get the special “Criterion” edition, I should be entitled to some discount when I purchase the Blue-Ray version. But that’s another story.

It has long been my contention that, if I purchase a DVD, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, as long as it does not include providing the content to others. So, if I want to copy the movie to my iPod, make a back-up disc, or whatever else, I ought to be able to do so — without any hassles or impediments.

Clearly, the entertainment industry disagrees. It’s not so much that they disagree in principle with my position. It’s just that to allow what I want would make it too easy for pirates to make illegal copies. This cannot be allowed in their view. To prevent this abuse, something must be sacrificed. So what gets destroyed are the rights of the legitimate users.

I have thought about this a good deal recently. I have tried to put myself in the shoes of the Hollywood executives. I am an author of several books. How would I like it if my books could simply be copied as easily as copying a Word file…and that such copies could be freely shared, given to people who never paid for the book? I would not like it. I would prefer that this not be the case. I would welcome copyright laws that say this is prohibited. Beyond that, there is not much else I would do.

The truth is that this situation already exists for my books. You can get my most recent book as a PDF file. Once purchased, you can copy it and give it to others. The same situation is also true, of course, for CDs. It is also the situation for anyone who has ever photocopied an article from a magazine to give to someone else, rather than buy another copy of the magazine.

I am sure that, if it were not so easy to do these things, more copies of books, CDs, and magazines would be sold. But so what? Times have changed. This is the technology that we live with. Despite these capabilities, publishers are still making money publishing books, artists are still making money recording and performing music, and magazine subscriptions are still a thriving business. Some of this “illegal” copying probably spurs sales. For example, after you read that article from the magazine, you may like it so much that you wind up getting your own subscription.

Regardless, my bottom line point is that we can’t go back in time to when these technologies did not exist. And we shouldn’t have laws and regulations that act as if we can. We just have to learn to tolerate a certain amount of piracy inherent in this system. We have to hope that there are enough people that are not inclined to break the law that we can still make a buck. We can also try to think of new ways to package these products so as to encourage legitimate purchases rather than illegal copies. Beyond that, leave the user alone and don’t burden us down with DRM rules that ultimately won’t work anyway.