Science, politics, and stupid people

First, let me say, Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh. h. hhhh.

I am so tired of the refusal to accept scientific discoveries simply because they might alter the status quo. I am tired of closed-mindedness, and of people who blindly follow the wrong leaders in their thinking. I am tired of politicized science, and yes I admit that it happens on both sides of every issue. Would you like to know what I'm talking about? Browse there, and read some of the links. Fascinting stuff.

To the sheep, I raise this question: whom do you find more trustworthy? A politician whose job requires dissembling and dishonesty, and often open lying...and a majority of whom use their clout to get away with violations of the law? Or a scientist motivated by a desire for knowledge, whose job requires by its very nature honesty, open-mindedness, and clear reporting? Of course of late the line has been blurred, as both left and right have dipped their hands into science, using money, power, and threats to coerce scientists to manipulate results.

Still, if a staggering majority of the scientific community holds a similar position on something it seems only reasonable that they are correct, especially at times when the opposite view is held by a majority of elected officials (see: climate change from 2000-2004). It would seem to me that the majority of political influence on science would have to come from the party in power. If that is still not enough to tip the scales, don't you think the position of the scientists is the stronger?

Both scientists and politicians are often brilliant, but the former are brilliant at discovery while the latter are brilliant at manipulating human minds. Again, which do YOU find more credible?

Here is a brief and incomplete history of political (and religious, which really amounts to the same thing) opposition to science. Let's see if there is a trend.

Heliocentrism: Philolaus hypothesized in the 4th Century BC that the Earth moved. In 1543 Copernicus's work was published (posthumously) even then it was forced to contain a preface stating that it was merely "mathematical convenience" and not reality. It was not until the 17th century that it was accepted by the church (and hence, the western leaders) as correct that Earth revovled around sun. So, 2000 years...I don't have that kind of time to wait for people to admit truth, and anyone who fails to do so is an enemy of knowledge.

An intersting fabrication, not so much of science but of history, is this. Man, I was taught in school, as an undeniable fact, that the Catholics thought the world was flat...how unbelievably depressing that truth can be shunted so easily...

In 1543 Vesalius counted ribs in men and women, and was met with fierce controversy...shouldn't men have one fewer than women if God made Eve from Adam's rib? Anyone want to count now? Why was this one even a problem? I mean, even for literal-minded morons it would seem to make sense that Cain and Abel would be born with the normal number of ribs.

King James I said the following in regard to smoking: "A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmfull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." It took until 1964 for the Surgeon General of the US to point out how bad it was. Even then the tobacco industry and its stakeholders tried to convince the public otherwise.

That last link also mentions the 10-year delay of plate tectonic theory, because it was "classified military information" relevant to "underseas warfare."

I could go on, but the idea is that there are always those who would oppose new science for selfish reasons, or to preserve the status quo, and those fools are at last proven dramatically and completely wrong. Does anyone (sane and reasonable) now dispute the Solar system, human rib count, the hazards of tobacco, or plate tectonics?

Now, two major controversies of science face us. Both have obtained scientific consensus, although opponenets deny the existence of such a consensus in either. One is opposed politically, the other religiously. They are climate change and evolution. The arguments against scientific consensus come from people who do not know what the phrase means.

I will not go into the details of why either of these theories is clearly correct. The point here is that history is on the side of the scientific community. Why can't we accept science now, so that those who worked for it can realize its benefits, instead of rationing those benefits only to their distant descendants?

Democratic Primary Mess

I was bored here at work, so I looked at some election coverage and did some math to try to figure the whole mess out. Every way I can see it going favors Obama, but only by a very narrow margin. I made three scenarios, erring on the pessimistic side for the Obama camp, and in only one of them did he get the target number of delegates. 35 delegates went to Edwards and can't be reclaimed, and in my mock-ups it was close enough that that mattered. A lot of this was based on guesswork of who will win by how much where, but I think I made reasonable guesses.

For all scenarios, I awarded states yet to vote the following way (very rough guesses based on region/demographic/type of election):

Obama - North Carolina (55%), Indiana (60%), Oregon (55%), South Dakota (51%), Montana (50% [8-8 in delegates])

Clinton - Pennsylvania (60%), West Virginia (60%), Mississippi (51%), Kentucky (60%), Puerto Rico (60%), Guam (50% [2-2 in delegates])

I gave Clinton every state I thought she could win, except Montana which I have no idea about. I also awarded remaining Superdelegates at the same percentage as those already committed. One of the territories has 2.5 delegates as yet unawarded, I gave those to Clinton (making an even split for that election).

Scenario 1:

Florida and Michigan are seated as-is (I gave Obama the 40% of "uncommitted" delegates). This would push the number of delegates to 4361 and thus the target number to 2180.

So far -

Obama 1500 pledged, 205 super, 1705 total

Clinton 1393.5 pledged, 244 super, 1637.5 total

After all elections, before remaining Superdelegates -

Obama 1992

Clinton 1949.5

After Superdelegates -

Obama 2147

Clinton 2143

So, seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not necessarily remove the problem of no candidate hitting the target number for a majority. There could easily be a contested race at the convention anyway.

Scenario 2: Florida and Michigan revote, and are seated at the convention. In this revote, I assumed that Clinton would win both states, Florida 55% and Michigan 60%. Under that assumption, Obama still picked up more delegates from these states and closed the gap percentage-wise.

After all elections, before remianing Superdelegates -

Obama 2013

Clinton 1967

After Superdelegates -

Obama 2168

Clinton 2158

So even in the revote situation, unless things change in those states, it may be that neither candidate can get to the "finish line."

Scenario 3: Florida and Michigan are not seated at all. This is certainly not a desirable situation, but I included it in case they can't figure something out. I read somewhere that since Florida's Governor is a Republican he flat-out refuses to use money from the State to fund another election. The Michigan folks say that it violates their State Constitution to revote a primary, but that they could do a caucus. What a mess...

After all elections, before remaining Superdelegates -

Obama 1879

Clinton 1788

After Superdelegates

Obama 2034

Clinton 1979

So, believe it or not, if my guesses on the States yet to vote are close to correct, the only way a candidate would get a majority is for Michigan and Florida to be denied seats.

In Summary: Unless Clinton surprises and wins some states Obama should, or really cleans up in the states she should win, Obama's lead should hold up, but only barely. I think my estimates were on the optimistic side if one is a Clinton supporter, as well. The biggest hole I can punch in my own argument (apart from the obvious fact that I don't really know how states will vote) is that there may be reason to believe that the Superdelegates would not continue to support Clinton at the same rate if Obama had the 50-100 delegate lead I'm projecting efore they cast their votes. It seems like the talking heads who are saying that no one can reach the finish line without Michigan or Florida are ignoring the fact that the target number gets higher when those states are counted.