More heavy criticism of Obama’s economic plan

Obama's economic plan is receiving heavy criticism from distinguished economists, including Joseph Stiglitz, James Galbraith, Paul Krugman and many critics from Europe . Many of the critics believe that Tim Geithner and Henry Paulson are far too beholden to Wall Street and the financial sector. The fear is that the toxic debt (much of it based on fraudulent mortgage-backed securities enabled by Wall Street fraud) is being lifted from the banks and dumped onto the U.S. taxpayers because the Obama plan is making the FDIC ultimately responsible. I'm not an economist, but based on these criticisms, this fear seems well-founded. I don't see any reason for Geithner or Paulson to be going to bat for the taxpayers. Most of their friends live on Wall Street. At this same link, you'll see the Nation's view that we need an outsider to clean up this mess. Writer Katina vanden Heuvel even recommend Eliot Spitzer as one of the few people aggressive enough to take on Wall Street before it was a trendy idea. Frankly, I like that idea, based on her stroll down memory lane (pre-Ashley Dupre):

Spitzer took on Wall Street's metastasizing corruption before the meltdown. He defended consumers' and taxpayers' rights. He speaks with passion and clarity about what went wrong and what needs to be done to restore integrity to our system. He is chastened by personal scandal, yet untouched by complicity in Wall Street's public scandals which have obliterated peoples' savings and devastated our country.

What does Spitzer have to say about the economic crisis? That the crisis was not caused by the lack of necessary laws. Rather, the crisis was caused by the lack of good judgment and lack of tenacity to defend the public interest. These things, says Spitzer, cannot be legislated:

Continue ReadingMore heavy criticism of Obama’s economic plan

MIT votes open-access regarding scientific papers

According to Wired, Scientific publishing might have just reached a tipping point, thanks to a new open access policy at MIT. . . [MIT's] faculty voted last week to make all of their papers available for free on the web, the first university-wide policy of its sort. MIT's Hal Abelson argued that this move "changed the power dynamics between scientific publishers and researchers." He pointed out that publishers "have been reluctant to give up control of the informational resources they have." Open access advocates have argued that "the current scientific publishing paradigm is broken because publishers control the scientific record, not academics"

Continue ReadingMIT votes open-access regarding scientific papers

If you dig a hole straight down, where would you end up?

If you dig a hole straight down, where will you end up? I live in Missouri. I was always told that I would end up in China. Not true. For that to happen, I would need to start digging my hole in Argentina, not in Missouri. How do I know? I used an antipode finder.

Continue ReadingIf you dig a hole straight down, where would you end up?

How to weed out junk science when discussing climate change.

George Will's recent journalistic malpractice has inspired much discussion by many people concerned about climate change. It's a critically important issue given that 41% of Americans currently think that the threat of global warming is being exaggerated by the media. The intellectual energy runs even deeper than criticism of George Will, though, leading us to the fundamental issue of how journalists and readers can distinguish legitimate science from sham (or politicized) science. The Washington Post recently agreed to publish a precisely-worded response to Will by Christopher Mooney. Here's Mooney's opener:

A recent controversy over claims about climate science by Post op-ed columnist George F. Will raises a critical question: Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic, how to recognize the real conclusions of science and how to distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation?

Mooney methodically takes Will to task on point after point. For instance, weather is not the same thing as the climate. The state of the art in 1970s climate science has been superseded by 2007 climate science. You can't determine long-term trends in Arctic ice by comparing ice thickness only on two strategically picked days. The bottom line is not surprising. If you want to do science well you have to do it with precision, measuring repeatedly, crunching the numbers every which way and then drawing your conclusions self-critically. What is not allowed is cherry picking.

Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists -- following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence. That, in the end, is all that good science really is. It's also what good journalism and commentary alike must strive to be -- now more than ever.

Mooney has given considerable thought to these topics. His byline indicates that he is the author of "The Republican War on Science" and co-author of the forthcoming "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future." I would supplement Mooney's well-written points, borrowing from our federal courts. They have long been faced with the struggle to determine what is real science and what is junk science, and they have settled on what is now called the "Daubert" test, (named after the case first applying the test, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). The Daubert analysis is applied many times every day in all federal courts (and many state courts) all across America. The problem facing judges is that the parties to law suits often produce experts who express scientific theories and explanations that are never heard outside of courtrooms. This justifiably makes judges suspicious. Is the witness doing "real" science or his he/she doing sham science to further the interests of the party paying his/her bills? The Daubert test asks the judge to serve as gatekeeper, to make sure that only legitimate science sees the light of day in courtrooms. Here are the relevant factors:
  • Does the method involve empirical testing (is the theory or technique falsifiable, refutable, and testable)?
  • Has the method been subjected to peer review and publication?
  • Do we know the error rate of the method and the existence and maintenance of standards concerning its operation?
  • Is the theory and technique generally accepted by a relevant scientific community?
Positive answers to each of these factors suggests that the witness is doing real science. Astrology would fail this test miserably. Applied to climate science, the Daubert test would require that we listen carefully to what the scientists talk about with each other, in person and in their peer-reviewed journals. Daubert would require that we know enough about the techniques of climate science to know how it makes its measurements and conclusions. Daubert would certainly require that we know the difference between the weather and the climate. Applying Daubert is not simply a matter of listening to the scientists. Quite often, the scientists are bought and paid for (e.g., scientists working for tobacco companies and corrupt pharmaceutical companies). Applying Daubert requires taking the time to understand how the science works to solve real-world questions and problems and then taking the time to see that its methodology is being used with rigor in this application. There are no shortcuts, expecially for outsider non-scientists. No shortcuts. No cherry-picking.

Continue ReadingHow to weed out junk science when discussing climate change.