More Modern Misinformation

We have arrived at a juncture where there seems to be no distinction between "history" and "prehistory." This is no minor affair. There is a vast gap between what is known through the human written record and that which preceded it. While the written record provides its unique set of issues in interpretation, they are nothing like the silence preceding ca. 4000 BC.

But now, some refer to a period like 10,000 BC as "history," as though there is some basis for direct observation from that period. This is patently false. While there were most emphatically human beings, with brains indistinguishable from today's Homo sap., and therefore it's certain they had spoken language, there is no record of a written one.

Therefore, there is still a point where we must stop, and say that any narrative about prehistoric events is based solely on inference and speculation on data collected from various scientific experiments. The conclusion that much popularized "science," particularly on television, would have us draw, is that enough data on fossilized plants or bones, geological strata, or gases collected from glacial ice will ultimately let us know what happened in prehistoric times in the same fashion we can know what happened in the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, at Gettysburg in July of 1863, or on the Plain of Marathon in 490 BC. No. What we see, on far, far too many TV shows is simply compounded of speculation and inference, and is therefore fiction based on some data, the equivalent of a "historical novel."

I believe much of this feeds on the lapse into disuetude of the notion of scientific laws, in favor of the convenient fallback that "it's all theory, it's just that some theories are more proven than others." Then there is the nature of science itself, most of which is a tremendously tedious affair. The average human being is bored to tears in a few minutes b y actual science. While thousands labor in laboratories world-wide, the true scientific vocation is probably as rare as that of concert pianist. Scientific inquiry is rather analogous to what a Vietnam veteran said about what he went through: "War is a bore, interrupted by moments of sheer terror when men die." Science is a bore, interrupted by rare moments of insight when something is actually discovered. There is therefore obviously a need for good interpretation of science for the general population -also a very rare individual- that does not do things like present any sketchy collection of data as worthy of the collective title of "theory."

The trouble with the Internet

"South Park did a decent job encapsulating a skeptics view of the Joseph Smith story, but in the main I would take Tacitus over South Park for historical accuracy, and South Park over Tacitus for poop jokes.

It's funny if you read The Annals (heh heh) of Tacitus that he's largely objective about events and other cultures, and saves all his mouth foaming for Christians. I guess Paul must have been as popular in Rome as he was with the Jerusalem church."

This is a quote taken from a rather popular Internet forum that acts as a sendup of dozens of contemporary news items. The first paragraph may be taken as strict opinion, and not subject to any meaningful comment.
The second paragraph is more interesting. The first sentence presents an opinion of Tacitus, a complete unknown to more one half of one percent of persons currently alive. It then states that Tactus is somehow historically accurate about "events and other cultures," and only irrational about Christians.
Well, someone reading this might then go and read a translation of Tacitus, or read some hideous scholarly article about Tacitus, but by and large that sentence will sit in their memory like some tiny, poisonous toad, unquestioned. In fact, Tacitus was a historian in the sense that what he said was accepted up into modern times as "historical," but some of what he says is factual, and some is just risible. In between, we have such things as his commentary on the Germans, who Tacitus chose to present as a moral model to contrast with the Rome of his own time, which he despised for its decadence and corruption.
The Germans were described as strong, simple, sturdy folk with good bedrock moral values and great integrity…in fact, superior in just about every way Tacitus could think of, except, of course, that they were barbarians.
This presentation of the Germanic tribes was taken out of its Taciturn context and was a standard reading in classrooms throughout Germany well into modern times. German youth were presented with an opinion (what was, in fact, simply whole cloth from some Roman who had never been near Germany or the Germans, except perhaps some he had run into in Rome) as if it were demonstrable historical fact.
Generations of German youth were persuaded to accept Tacitus' account as the basis for the superiority of the Germans and German culture, which was part of the foundation on which the Hohenzollern Empire built its theory that Germany was entitled to its "place in the sun," and on which the Nazis built their theories of race and world conquest.
So much for objectivity.

Science is in Intensive Care

Attempts to popularize Science and rationality as it was purveyed 30 or 40 years ago was invariably done by someone with credentials, and who approached it in a systematic manner (Martin Gardner comes to mind), and where what you learned invariably made sense in one's further readings*.
Now.....the best way to put it is that we are screwed. The popularization of Science has been taken over by movies, TV and the mass media, and there is so much that is twisted, rampantly Procrustean, or just plain wrong that there is literally nowhere to begin.
It may be that Mass Man never had any real chance of integrating Science with spirituality and a balanced view of the world, but we'll likely never find out.

*My citations here should in no way be construed as to apply any label of atheist or rationalist to me. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You wouldn't kid us......surely

Seen on the cover of a print edition of The Economist while shopping (paraphrased): "Doing something about America's economic tailspin."

Apparently it will take a magazine of that name, no doubt staffed by numerous Economists, interviewing or quoting from Economists, to tell us what should be obvious....but somehow we can't face it, and apparently on any level:

STOP SPENDING.

There. Now I'm an "Economist."

Economics has slid into repute as a putatitve "Social Science" (when no such thing exists), and treated as a secular religion. A half-century since the rise and fall of Keynesian theory (which should have killed off Economics as anything but stargazing, but didn't), some of its practitioners are regularly elevated to the eminence of shamans in our culture. And that's exactly what they are: the shamans and druids of a false religion. And they will retain their eminence because of that most powerful force in the universe: the human will to believe in something, even if demonstrably wrong, false-headed, and destructive.

Cut to the Chase.....

I really think this says all that needs be discussed Re: incipient pandemics.
(Again, thanks to xkcd.)

Perspective as a Substitute for Hysteria

In recent posts, I have complained about the snowballing trend in the media to conflate fact with adjective, and that any sense of perspective prior to 4:30 last Wednesday afternoon is receding at light speed. I now advance several positive reforms in reporting to counteract these trends.

1. Indicate not only figures expressed in current dollars, but also in constant dollars. Current figures given, e.g. $(trillions and trillions) could be followed with a symbol, say, something hardly used like: "※," that would stand for constant 1932 dollars (or 1968, or whatever....thus "trillions and trillions" becomes "millions and millions" or just ※ 9.98.

2. Create a perspective index for all weather reporting. The symbol "§," (which kinda looks like a hurricane anyway) could stand for "We really don't have facts & figures to support theories such as 'super-hurricanes' that might occur, because actual weather data, including hurricanes, only goes back to 1895, which means that our projections are not only worse than conjecture, they're just fantasies."

3. The symbol "仝," when applied to reports on volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and the like, could stand for "We've said this horror will overtake you someday, but not only do we have no real idea when, we have nowhere else to suggest that you might go. And, no, you can't come and live with us here in the studio."

4. We might address the sporadic reports of some sort of Armageddon (whether by Biblical prophecy, Nostradamus, the Mayan Long Count calendar, nuclear war or the examination of entrails of the reporter's recently deceased guinea pig) by " 〆," signifying "Disclaimer: while we've done our best to scare the crap out of you, and want to take any credit for giving you sleepless nights, naturally we can take no responsibility for the actual occurrence of any such horror upon humankind. We will, however, fully warrant our prediction that in 12 billion years (±200 million) the sun will expand into its red giant phase and leave the Earth a burned-out cinder.....so worry about that."

Endless Catastrophe

I believe this subject, which I have visited ere this, bears reiteration. The world is not ending, despite the constant stream of disaster / catastrophe reporting (and even series on cable), such that even 8 inches of lake-effect snow on Rochester or Buffalo is deemed a Sign of the End Times by some.
If this continues, I expect we'll have shows airing next season entitled A Volcano in Your Back Yard, Tsunamis for Two, Lahars in Laredo, Earthquake Ecstasy.
The constant natter about catastrophe and chaos perhaps makes it seem normal to view such series as Obama and the Fearmonger Express, doing exactly the same thing he took G.W. Bush to task for even before his nomination. Only the War on Terror was / is not "real," but if we all don't get behind his legislative agenda we face then end of the world as we know it. The Sky Will Fall.

OK, Chicken Little.....

Are Facts Overrated?

Studies have (again) found that there is no link between autism and the preservative Thimerosal, used in vaccines. But the same voices are raised, over and over again -with no basis for their claims- that somehow Thimerosal is the problem....as I commented on in an earlier post. A broader issue is the irrational spillover that starts to blame ALL vaccination for a whole array of conditions.
There is no doubt there are many terrible afflictions in this vale of tears, and people are going to clutch desperately to anything that appears to provide an answer. There are celebrities with loud voices who have taken up this baseless cause, and for that reason, as the noise bounces around on the rocks and appears credible because of its volume, a number of weak-minded politicians join this ill-considered crusade.
But at some point facts must be acknowledged....or we are just "the tribe that lost its head."

Fashionable Catastrophe

I love reading this type of science article.....but then I have to stop and reflect that there's not all that much science in it. Right now, it's quite the fashion to blither on about catastrophe and Armageddons of all sorts and stripes, but this article -in a putatively respectable "journal of record," is typical of much of what one reads and/or views. A theory built upon linked hypotheses, all resting on very limited and even tenuous physical evidence. The problem is that once the "fashion effect" takes hold, and the theory begins to appear on multiple web sites, then The Hysteria Channel takes over, or The Discovery of a New Disaster Channel, The Learning about Lahars and Tsunamis Channel, or The All Weather is a Disaster Channel....and suddenly a fringe theory has become a sort of "fact" in the common wisdom, a mountain of speculation with only the most tenuous base of support in fact. But facts are such dreary things......