Here’s this week’s “Ask a scienceblogger” question:
How is it that all the PIs (Tara, PZ, Orac et al.), various grad students, post-docs, etc. find time to fulfill their primary objectives (day jobs) and blog so prolifically?
I don’t know if you can handle the truth, but here it is…
Here’s this week’s “Ask a scienceblogger” question:
How is it that all the PIs (Tara, PZ, Orac et al.), various grad students, post-docs, etc. find time to fulfill their primary objectives (day jobs) and blog so prolifically?
I don’t know if you can handle the truth, but here it is…
Perhaps Lindsay doesn’t realize it, but she has data that pinpoint the date of the Singularity. Or the Rapture. Whatevs.
My kids like these energy drinks that are so popular nowadays—so it’s useful to learn what is in Red Bull. It looks like I won’t have to slap that can out of their hands next time I catch the whippersnappers drinking it (although I may have to give them a lecture about being thrifty—we fogies have to have something to complain about.)
Via Coturnix, here’s an extremely depressing resignation letter from a public school teacher. I’ve seen this kind of thing a few times now: our problem is that the public schools are being treated as little factories, where you push kindergarten kids in at one end, and a dozen years later an adult with an education pops out. A high school diploma is regarded as an entitlement rather than an earned acknowledgment of ability, and what that means is that administrators tend to lower their standards and be extremely lenient about the behavior and skills of both students and faculty. Even where there are great teachers and first-rate students, they are getting swamped in the rising tide of permitted nonsense.
After all, if all the voting public cares about is your graduation rate, it’s easy to keep that high: just hand out diplomas to kids for showing up.
I’m a bit stunned, people. I set up my DonorsChoose challenge to raise money for teachers with a goal of $2000, and we gave ourselves two weeks to raise that much. It’s the second day of the fundraiser, and my readers have contributed $3,967.80, and fully funded 7 of the 12 proposals. Seriously, I’m feeling a bit like Dr Evil; I put my pinkie finger to the corner of my mouth, asked for the huge sum of two thousand dollars, and laughed maniacally at my arrogance…and you people shrugged your shoulders and just came through with the cash. I am impressed.
Thank you all very much.
If anyone else wants to contribute, there are still underfunded proposals, and Janet has been our central coordinator, and has a list of other challenges through the Seed scienceblogs consortium.
I can’t bear listening to myself, so someone else will have to tell me how big a fool I made of myself on the podcast interview.
(You usual suspects don’t even need to bother to listen to it to tell me how big a fool I am—just go ahead and get it out of your system.)
I’ve been listening to Bethell vs. Mooney on Science Friday, and I’ve come to one conclusion: I really need to slap Ira Flatow. Repeatedly. And maybe kick him a few times, too.
He was playing right into Bethell’s hands. Bethell was rambling and vague, and he went on and on, and Flatow fed into it. Mooney had to interrupt several times and demand a chance to rebut (and good for him—he was on the attack, as he needed to be), and at least once Flatow stopped Mooney for a commercial and then asked Bethell to follow up afterwards.
Worse, Flatow wouldn’t allow any depth. They’d start getting into HIV and Bethell’s denial, and just as Mooney was getting into it, he’d say, “Now we need to talk about global warming!” Come on, FOCUS. The strengths of science come into play when we have a chance to dig deep and actually grapple with the issues; Bethell is a superficial flibbertigibbet who knows nothing, and this show gave him a forum for his usual unsupported pronouncements of doubt.
Grrr. Mooney was appropriately assertive, but it sounds like we need to go to new levels of aggression: next interview, bring duct tape and a clothesline. Shut the interviewer up, and charge right into the data. I can’t believe Flatow let Bethell get away with that crap.
He must be one of those very abstract types who never looks at data, doesn’t understand statistics, and has never heard of the word “normalized.” In a post that is a microcosmic analog of the whole Intelligent Design paradigm, Dembski completely bungles an analysis of Google searches to conclude that “international interest in ID is growing.” Andrea Bottaro shows that he screwed up thoroughly, and the conclusion is actually the reverse.
I wonder if Dembski will acknowledge the correction, and admit that international interest in ID is negligible or declining? Or will his mistake mysteriously disappear from his web page? Anyone want to place any bets?
