-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Having Faith in Science
Author: BobR
Date: 2014-04-09 10:43:34
The last couple of weeks, I've written about Cosmos and the inevitable right-wing reactions to it. The certainty of evidence which is provided by science is certainly an affront to those who consider faith to be more noble and pure. Who are you going to trust? they ask - them our your own lying peer-reviewed, tested, and proven scientific evidence?
Even in this day and age, there are those who insist the universe is only a few thousand years old, and that the earth is flat (they are putting out their own "scientific" rebuttal to the notion of a non-geocentric universe), I'd like to just take a look at a few science-oriented stories that I think are thought-provoking.
As I've mentioned before, I don't know if climate change deniers base their positions on the notion that science is bad, or that the oil barons are their masters, or that they are just plain selfish. It seems there are plenty of people in that last category who appear to be hell-bent on consuming the planet into oblivion. Tangentially related are the biotech companies that are playing God with genetics and stumbling forward towards the almighty dollar with nary a concern for the side effects of the frankenfoods they are unleashing upon us all.
The whole GMO and organic argument has always been based upon the human angle. We wonder what could happen by putting those GMO or heavily insecticide-laden foods into our bodies. The humble honeybee, though, seems to be the metaphorical canary in the coal mine, as entire hives have mysteriously died out. Evidence is continuing to suggest, however, that the cause isn't so mysterious, and is directly related to insecticides - whether applied directly or coded into the DNA of the plants themselves. While not stating so directly, studies show honeybee declines in Europe are lower than in the US. GMO crops are banned in much of Europe, as are certain insecticides. It's true there could be other factors, but one need not be a scientist to realize that chemicals designed to kill harmful insects could also kill beneficial ones. Unfortunately, without bees, no other factors matter, because a lot of crops will never come to fruition (literally).
As our planet teeters on the brink of a climate tipover, it's natural to ponder whether we could pick up and move to another planet. Beyond the logistical problems, there is the problem of creating new biospheres elsewhere. Could mankind really create a kind of Noah's Ark to transport plant and animal species elsewhere? What would happen to them in the zero G transit? One study has shone some light on the unforeseen aspects:
What happened in space to effect this change? There's still so much to learn about our universe and how it affects us. We are constantly being touched by rays from far away stars (not only the light, but the other frequencies and energies our meager senses are unable to detect). Scientists from 3 major universities might be a little closer to understanding some of the mechanics of our universe by painstakingly disassembling a NASA image:
It's an amazing study. It shows that although the big scientific discoveries and announcements are exciting and boggle the imagination, the work that proceeds those moments is often tedious, yet meticulous in its scrupulousness to ensure that the results are accurate and unbiased.
It is the antithesis of the flat earthers and climate change deniers who filter out any evidence to the contrary of their preconceived conclusion. Certainty in the absence of evidence is faith, and faith is not science.
Even in this day and age, there are those who insist the universe is only a few thousand years old, and that the earth is flat (they are putting out their own "scientific" rebuttal to the notion of a non-geocentric universe), I'd like to just take a look at a few science-oriented stories that I think are thought-provoking.
As I've mentioned before, I don't know if climate change deniers base their positions on the notion that science is bad, or that the oil barons are their masters, or that they are just plain selfish. It seems there are plenty of people in that last category who appear to be hell-bent on consuming the planet into oblivion. Tangentially related are the biotech companies that are playing God with genetics and stumbling forward towards the almighty dollar with nary a concern for the side effects of the frankenfoods they are unleashing upon us all.
The whole GMO and organic argument has always been based upon the human angle. We wonder what could happen by putting those GMO or heavily insecticide-laden foods into our bodies. The humble honeybee, though, seems to be the metaphorical canary in the coal mine, as entire hives have mysteriously died out. Evidence is continuing to suggest, however, that the cause isn't so mysterious, and is directly related to insecticides - whether applied directly or coded into the DNA of the plants themselves. While not stating so directly, studies show honeybee declines in Europe are lower than in the US. GMO crops are banned in much of Europe, as are certain insecticides. It's true there could be other factors, but one need not be a scientist to realize that chemicals designed to kill harmful insects could also kill beneficial ones. Unfortunately, without bees, no other factors matter, because a lot of crops will never come to fruition (literally).
As our planet teeters on the brink of a climate tipover, it's natural to ponder whether we could pick up and move to another planet. Beyond the logistical problems, there is the problem of creating new biospheres elsewhere. Could mankind really create a kind of Noah's Ark to transport plant and animal species elsewhere? What would happen to them in the zero G transit? One study has shone some light on the unforeseen aspects:
A tree grown from a cherry pit that traveled in space five years ago with astronaut Koichi Wakata, now commander of the International Space Station, has bloomed far ahead of what is normal--to the astonishment of botanists.
Cherry trees typically take about a decade from the time they sprout from seeds to bloom.
[...]
The original Chujohimeseigan-zakura tree is a variant of the “yamazakura” wild cherry species, and until now, attempts to grow young trees from its fruit have been unsuccessful.
[...]
“There is a theoretical possibility that the cosmic environment has had a certain impact on agents in the seeds that control budding and the growth process, but we have absolutely no answer as to why the trees have come into bloom so fast,” she said.
Although each flower of the parent tree has around 30 petals, the flowers of the space cherry have only five petals.
What happened in space to effect this change? There's still so much to learn about our universe and how it affects us. We are constantly being touched by rays from far away stars (not only the light, but the other frequencies and energies our meager senses are unable to detect). Scientists from 3 major universities might be a little closer to understanding some of the mechanics of our universe by painstakingly disassembling a NASA image:
Scientists in Boston have released an image which they say could be the first time dark matter has ever been captured on a Nasa telescope.
The new study of gamma rays captured by the US space agency’s Fermi apparatus picked up a signal which “cannot be explained by other alternatives” – meaning that by process of elimination what we are seeing has a high chance of being the elusive substance.
[...]
by analysing an image of gamma rays coming from the Milky Way, a joint team from Harvard, the University of Chicago and MIT in Boston have been able to pick out a bright core at the centre of our galaxy that is only currently explained by models of dark matter itself.
[...]
The team took publicly available images of gamma ray light shot out from the Milky Way and, piece by piece, removed every pixel that could be explained by a known phenomenon like a supernova or particles colliding with interstellar gas.
It's an amazing study. It shows that although the big scientific discoveries and announcements are exciting and boggle the imagination, the work that proceeds those moments is often tedious, yet meticulous in its scrupulousness to ensure that the results are accurate and unbiased.
It is the antithesis of the flat earthers and climate change deniers who filter out any evidence to the contrary of their preconceived conclusion. Certainty in the absence of evidence is faith, and faith is not science.
