Back in July, I pointed out something that no one else seemed to be saying.  Namely:

With prior references to Vermont Yankee having 30% more fence line radiation, how much of a change is that really?

[…]

I.e., if the radiation level was 14 millirems under the OLD method of calculation and then the NEW method of calculation indicates 18 millirems (after multiplying the old calculation method by .71), well, that’s not really in the area of a 30% increase.  It’s more in the area of an 80% increase.  

The problem is, the stories we’ve seen about this so far do mention the change in computation method, but don’t mention when the variation was applied.

The Rutland Herald brings this issue back up again, but still refuses to frame it in terms which are scientifically accurate about the actual change in levels, merely stating that:

Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, an outspoken critic of nuclear power, led the charge, claiming that the Department of Health was changing the way Vermont was calculating the radiation – the so-called fenceline dose – coming out of the plant to allow Entergy Nuclear to release more radiation.

While it’s no secret Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is releasing more radiation, the Department of Health maintains that it is still within state limits, which it says are the strictest in the country at 20 millirems a year. The Environmental Protection Agency limits exposure to 25 millirems a year, while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows 100 millirems a year.

Not to fear, however, because VY put up a concrete wall to help absorb the radiation.  In the meantime, apparently no one was supposed to talk about the scary radiation limits:

Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, who along with MacDonald are the two legislative members of the panel, said Chairman David O’Brien, who is the commissioner of the Department of Public Service, limited the agenda to keep a fellow legislator from addressing the panel on the issue of the radiation limits.

Here’s what I find infuriating about the story, however:

Rep. Richard Marek, D-Newfane, chairman of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, had investigated the Health Department’s new standards and found that it violated state regulations by changing the way it calculated the radiation.

It would have been nice to know a little more than this.  Is anyone familiar with which regulations Marek is discussing?  It took some digging, but once again, bloggers came to the rescue.  I was able to track it down via Evacuationplans.org, quoting the BFP from November 13, 2008 (“Panel wants new radiological health rule”):

The Department of Health should rewrite a 1977 radiological health rule it uses to monitor radiation releases from the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and make sure the public has an opportunity to comment, a legislative oversight committee concluded Wednesday.

Critics of the nuclear plant have said the Health Department had re-interpreted the emission measurement rule over the years, allowing radiation at the edge of the plant’s property to violate state standards.

(UPDATE2: It’s now officially on the agenda. This is from Senator Shumlin’s statement:

(UPDATE: Senate President Pro Tem Shumlin and Speaker Smith will be holding a press conference on their priorities for the rest of the legislative session, and GMD has just received word that it will likely include a decision to move quickly on marriage equality. If such an effort is passed into law, Vermont would become the first state to recognize same-sex marriages without being compelled by a court. Details if and when they materialize.)

I want to start by explaining that marriage is something that is, personally, an abstraction.  I get that people get married.  I get why they get married.  There are some very specific practical reasons for it, but those to me are more a matter of functional benefit than any emotional tie to it.

I could spend days trying to figure out why I view it so differently from most people I know, but I know that the way my mind works, I view all sorts of things differently from most people I know, but that’s not entirely relevant here.

This is what’s relevant here (hat tip myDD):

In Vermont, we’ve had civil unions for nearly a decade now.  The battle over them was intense, nasty and bitter.  There were bumper stickers with obscene comments about a particular sex act that were frequently visible.  People completely freaked out about the sanctity of marriage.  Some groups went around the area sponsoring anti-gay slide-shows talking about the dangers of homosexuality.  

In 2007 & 2008, we had hearings around the state on same-sex marriage (I love blogged one of those here).  The comments were nearly unanimous in support of it.  

I watched most of the debate in Massachusetts over same-sex marriage during their constitutional convention over the matter.  It was a fascinating shift– first with people opposing all forms of recognition of same-sex couples, and very quickly changing to civil unions as being the conservative alternative to full marriage and then just leaving it at full marriage.  In Vermont, those opposed to same-sex marriage are still trying very hard to bar the door.  As was reported in Green Mountain Daily:

The party line then (emphasis added):

Family groups believe Vermont’s “civil unions” law will have a negative impact on the state and may be used to undermine marriage laws across the country.
    Janet Parshall, chief spokeswoman for the Family Research Council, decried the lawmakers’ action.
    “This is ‘gay marriage’ in everything but name, and it is a direct assault on society’s most essential institution,” Parshall said.

The party line now:

“It appears that, from their side,” said (Stephen) Cable (President of the “Center for American Cultural Renewal” in Rutland), “it is a battle of semantics, and being in a position of being more accepted in terms of the word ‘marriage.’ From our perspective, ‘marriage’ is drastically different. The word marriage,” he said, “implies, you know, it implies [the] opposite sex can form a union. So it’s very, very different from our perspective.”

I get a bit complacent about all this sometimes.  I don’t generally come out to people really, because it doesn’t occur to me that they don’t know I’m a lesbian.  I reference my partner by name in casual conversation so anyone who doesn’t know will figure it out pretty quickly, but I rarely use language to describe our relationship that anyone else wouldn’t use.  I.e., I refer to our anniversary, our house, etc.  

It doesn’t really occur to me to approach this any different way.

And yes, there are political opportunists who attack homosexuality, and there is occasionally harassment in Vermont and governor Douglas actually used the threat of same-sex marriage as part of his fundraising material.  

But still, I feel like, you know these people are just nuts and I think most people get that they’re nuts.

Then I pull up Pam’s House Blend and read that a Spanish jury acquitted a man of murder.  What was his crime?  Killing two gay men.  How did he kill them?  He stabbed them 57 times, looted their apartment to make it look like a robbery and then set the place ablaze.

His defense?  Gay panic.

I look at that video above from the courage campaign and I look at this story and I just don’t even know what to say or do about it.  It’s just terrifying to me.

It’s not like I’ve never been threatened by homophobes before.  I have (though not in a long time).  But I just think… this doesn’t make any sense.  It’s so completely insane to me and I just look at this and I just want to scream out “what the hell is wrong with you people?”

But that’s not just about that murder or that jury.  That’s really about Proposition 8 and the groups that oppose same-sex marriage in Vermont, and about anyone who thinks that they should be enforcing their anti-gay prejudices through the law.  

It’s really about what, to me, is the simplicity of this issue: we are human beings, like anyone else, and we deserve to be treated no better or worse than anyone else as a result of our sexual orientation.

This seems like it should be simple, but it’s also pretty damned clear that not everyone gets it.

And I honestly don’t know what to do other than to just present a real and true face of humanity to these people and hope for the best.

The original story is here.  The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Vermont resident Diana Levine in Wyeth v. Levine.  Levine had won her case in Vermont, but drug company Wyeth had appealed the almost $7 million award all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Levine, a musician, had her arm amputated when an anti-nausea drug was improperly administered in her artery, and sued the manufacturer for failing to warn of the risks on the drug’s label. Wyeth claimed that her case was pre-empted by federal law.

Senator Patrick Leahy filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief to a Vermonter Diana Levine’s U.S. Supreme Court case.  Leahy was joined in his “amicus” legal brief, which was filed in August 2008, by 17 members of Congress, including Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders and Vermont Congressman Peter Welch and Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tom Harkin, Dianne Feinstein, Richard J. Durbin, and Russell D. Feingold, and Representatives Henry A. Waxman, John Conyers, Jr., John D. Dingell,

Frank Pallone, Jr., Bart Stupak, Zoe Lofgren, Linda Sanchez, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Maxine Waters.

When an outside party that believes the court’s decision in a specific case may affect its interests files an amicus brief.  Senator Leahy has filed just 10 such briefs in more than 30 years in Congress.  In this case, Wyeth and the Bush administration sought to ascribe to Congress an unfounded intent to displace state tort law.

This nightmare for Diana Levine began in 2000 when she was treated in a Vermont hospital for symptoms associated with migraine headaches.  She was injected with Phenergan, which has been manufactured by Wyeth for almost 50 years and has been used to treat nausea linked to migraine headaches, reactions to pain killers, food poisoning, and a variety of other incidents that cause extensive vomiting.  The drug was injected into Levine’s arm in a manner that caused arterial contact called an IV push.  While there are drugs which are normally administered in this manner in an emergency situation, Wyeth’s own literature noted that this drug could cause a serious infection like gangrene if it is used in an IV push.  While Wyeth has known that there is an incredible risk to an IV push using Phenergan, it failed to revise its warning label to warn of these dangers.

“Levine received two injections of Phenergan in 2002 to treat nausea associated with a migraine headache. The second injection was administered using an intravenous or “IV push” method, which uses a syringe to push the medication directly into the patient’s vein,” according to Bloomburg news.

The drug penetrated Levine’s artery, destroying it and eventually killing much of the tissue in her arm and hand. She underwent two amputations, first losing her right hand and then her arm up to her elbow.  Although Phenergan’s two-page label at the time included a warning about injection into an artery, it didn’t advise not to use the IV push technique.

In his amicus brief, Senator Leahy argued,

“Diana Levine is a successful musician in Vermont, and the tragedy she suffered that has had a profound impact on her career, should have been prevented,” said Leahy.  “A number of recent Supreme Court decisions have stripped protections for every day Americans in favor of shielding large corporations from liability.  The Court’s decision in Ms. Levine’s case could have far-reaching effects on the ability of all Americans to seek justice in their courts when they are injured by a defective pharmaceutical drug.  I hope the Court takes the opportunity to reject the views of Wyeth and of the administration that mere approval from the Food and Drug Administration of a drug label immunizes a drug maker from liability when a consumer is injured or killed.  In over 70 years of enacting and amending the laws governing the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs, Congress never intended this perverse result.”

To me, it is a travesty that Chief Justice Roberts remained on the case even though his most recent financial disclosure form indicates he owns stock in Pfizer, which has announced plans to merge with Wyeth in a $68 Million merger deal.  In my personal opinion, Supreme Court Justices should not be owning stocks.  And, if they do, they should recuse themselves from any cases that come before them involving there portfolio.  It’s no surprise then that Roberts voted against Levine.  Even with that stacked deck Wyeth did not prevail.

According to Bloomburg,

The justices, voting 6-3, said that pharmaceutical companies aren’t shielded from suit by the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a treatment and its packaging information.

“Congress did not intend FDA oversight to be the exclusive means of ensuring drug safety and effectiveness,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.

In his opinion for the court, Stevens left open the possibility that suits might be barred in cases where the FDA explicitly considered and rejected a requirement for stronger warnings.

The ruling is a victory for Diana Levine, 63, a children’s musician who says Wyeth should have warned against the injection method that caused gangrene in her right arm, and Levine’s lawyer, David Frederick, called the ruling a “broad victory for consumers.”

Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas joined Stevens in the majority. Thomas wrote separately to say the court should have been even more deferential to state laws.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito dissented. Alito, writing for the three, said state- law product-liability suits would interfere with the federal drug-approval system.

The Bush administration backed the industry, arguing that “jury awards can interfere with the FDA’s work by forcing drugmakers to exaggerate some dangers.”

The case is Wyeth v. Levine, 06-1249.

Right below this piece, you’ll see an event announcement.  

Today’s Rutland Herald discusses this event with a little detail on the science behind it:

A study of cancer occurring in children living near Germany’s 16 nuclear power plants show that the reactors pose a serious risk to young children, a German pediatrician said Thursday.

Dr. Winfrid Eisenberg of Herford, Germany, has been speaking throughout Vermont for the past two weeks, citing a German study in 2007 that showed a definite link between nuclear power and childhood cancer, particularly leukemia.

What’s being referenced here is the KiKK study, and I strongly encourage people to read about it, discuss it, and think about it.  It’s highly technical and several hundred pages long, and in German, so I don’t expect everyone to read the whole thing (I haven’t), but the data itself is interesting.  There’s a good background site on the study here.

After the fold, I’ll be explaining a little bit about the scientific method and how it applies to this study.

Okay, I’m going to summarize a little here, but still try to get the gist of it:

On a basic level, we have three tools to use in assessing the nature of a scientific phenomenon.  One is case studies, which are detailed interviews of individuals or small groups.  They can’t be used to assess cause and they can’t be used to generalize, but they can be used to get a lot of detail which can give us ideas about other approaches.

Correlational research (such as surveys) will allow you to look at collections and links between a variety of factors.  A lot of the research on nuclear power and health effects is correlational.  A problem with this is that we can’t really determine cause from correlational work.  We can see that two factors tend to occur in coincidence with one another but we don’t know if one causes the other.

The example I use in my classes is this:

It’s widely known that there’s a high correlation between churches and bars in a given community.  I.e., the more bars you have, the more churches you have.  Now– this can be explained several ways.  It could be that churches are repressive and drive people to drink.  It could be that bars get more people to drink and do things they regret which drives them to churches.  

The more likely explanation however is that neither causes the other but simply that the larger a population you have the more of a perceived need there is for both factors.

So, in reality, correlations can’t really prove anything other that some sort of connection exists.

We’re still in that place.  The KiKK study tells us that the closer people live to power plants and that the younger those people are, the higher the incidence of leukemia is, but it doesn’t tell us that the nuclear power causes leukemia to nearby residents.  

The third approach is experimental design, which is actual manipulation of factors in order to see what changes.  I.e., (we would never do this, so it’s just an example) intentionally increasing the radiation levels in some homes to see how it impacts the health of its inhabitants vs. those whose radiation levels haven’t been increased.  In this particular research we can actively assess cause because we’ve changed something in order to see what factors are affected by that change.

Now let me get back to the KiKK study: what it can’t do is say for certain that nuclear power plants cause leukemia.   What it does do, however, is make a very compelling case that the power plants are the likely culprit.  The populations they investigated are small (which means that other factors could skew the data a bit) but leukemia is very rare and the number of children with leukemia in residence near nuclear power plants more than doubled what would have been expected based on statistical averages.

One thing I want to caution people about when discussing this: please don’t use this study to claim that nuclear power causes leukemia.  We don’t know this.  We suspect it, but we don’t know it.  What we do know is that nuclear power plants tend to have more leukemia surrounding them than places without power plants, but a power plant is an extremely complex system and its effect on the surrounding environment is not limited in itself to simply the nuclear materials.

All this provides context for surrounding issues: the decommissioning fund, whether or not to extend the license, etc., but in the meantime, we’ve got some fascinating research which bolsters the case against using nuclear power, but is not conclusive.

Science is a process, and one that teaches us over time if we allow it to.  This is good science and fascinating research, but for anyone who thinks that they can grasp the gist of this research from a six-paragraph news piece, please yourself a favor: if you use it to argue for a position, take some time to investigate it, read about it and understand the science before you just jump in and do yourself more harm than good by arguing for something you don’t understand.

About a month and a half ago, I posted this piece, which outlined the problems faced by Vermonters trying to contact the department of labor about filing unemployment claims, which included this quote from the Rutland Herald:

And while the state has been adding staff to the call centers, Powden said Vermonters who need the services should keep on calling.

“Think of it as a radio contest,” she said. “Just hit the redial button.”

A week later, there was a reference in the Herald to how Vermonter’s were “draining” the unemployment system, and how it would require increased contribution from employers.  That piece included this gem (emphasis mine):

The administration of Gov. James Douglas has not proposed a solution to the problem of a diminishing unemployment fund. But the answer will likely have to involve changes to the amount of employer contributions – don’t call them taxes, Powden said – and diminished benefits for unemployed workers.

Apparently, the Hearald didn’t listen to her, though, because here’s today’s piece:

The proposal by Gov. James Douglas’ administration to keep the fund afloat would involve raising taxes on employers by more than $40 million a year for two years by increasing the amount of wages that are subject to the tax. That amount, $8,000 in annual wages, has not been changed in a quarter century, even as benefits have increased.

The herald also notes that:

…hidden in the arcane details of the declining unemployment fund, is the possibility… and a decline in unemployment benefits for those who are laid off or otherwise lose their jobs.

So it’s a twofer: the Douglas administration gets to screw over the poor and has another excuse for dumping on Vermont over its high taxes on businesses.  

Hey, maybe they’ll use this as an opportunity to push for elimination of ACT 250.  Win-win!

(Updated with more details. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Per today’s Rutland Herald, a piece by Susan Smallheer brings up a couple inconvenient facts (emphasis mine):

A valve leaking more than 3,600 gallons of radioactive water a day at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station, discovered seven weeks ago, still hasn’t been fixed, an Entergy Nuclear official said Monday.

[…]

The company announced the discovery of the leak in early January, saying the leak had been discovered two weeks earlier.

According to Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Entergy has tried at least three times to fix the problem, traced to a faulty gasket in a valve in the reactor’s clean-out system.

Sheehan said the leak was now down to one-tenth of a gallon a minute, but he said he didn’t know how long the leak had been reduced. He said the water was “slightly radioactive.”

Sheehan said the gasket would have to be repaired, and Entergy Nuclear now had a spare valve on hand. He said the company could try to make some temporary repairs, or shut the plant down and quickly make the permanent repair.

Okay, so questions:

How long have they had the proper replacement gasket to fix this?

Why haven’t they done it already?

How long does it take to get a replacement gasket?

How cheap is our energy when it ends up polluting our rivers with radioactive waste?

And why do we have to keep asking questions like this?

UPDATE:

Another article by Smallheer, in today’s Rutland Herald:

Entergy Nuclear may have to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant to fix the persistent leak of radioactive water in the reactor’s clean-out system.

Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, said Tuesday plant engineers, along with specialists hired by the company, would be talking about the valve leak later this week to discuss another approach to solving the problem.

Shutting the reactor down to fix the problem “is always an option,” he said.

Well, that’s good to know, as long as they’re keeping their options open.  

My favorite part, though, is Williams saying that it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly how much water was leaking.  Nice.

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

Gov. James Douglas is the second highest paid state employee in Vermont, according to payroll numbers, making $68.53 an hour for an annual salary of $142,542.

Douglas is also among the highest paid governors in the country… only 14 other state governors in the United States make more money… He’s also the highest paid governor in New England…

Among the perks of the job Douglas does enjoy are access to a state car – driven by his security detail from the Vermont State Police – and a regular travel allowance.

Also on that list are Secretary of Human Services Robert Hofmann ($58.54 an hour, annual salary of $121,763); Public Service Board Chairman James Volz ($56.10 an hour, annual salary of $116,688); Agency of Administration Secretary Neale Lunderville ($55.58 an hour, annual salary of $115,606); Agency of Transportation Secretary David Dill ($55.58 an hour, annual salary of $115,606); Department of Health Commissioner Wendy Davis ($55.54 an hour, annual salary of $115,523) and Agency of Agriculture Secretary Roger Allbee ($52.50 an hour, annual salary of $109,387).

Now… far be it from me to question the wisdom of the Vermont pay structure, but I have to ask what is it that Neale Lunderville does for that $121,763/year?  

I guess I have to seriously ask why any public official in Vermont needs to be paid a six-figure salary.  I’d also like to know if any top Douglas administration employees are slated for cuts among those 600 employees Douglas wants to lay off.  If, for example, we were to lay off Lunderville, we could probably save the jobs of three other state employees, at least one of whom might actually accomplish some form of social good.  

Of course, it’s also important to remember that for some of these individuals, these are not full-time jobs.  If they were, it would be more complicated, for example, the following to be true:

…in addition to her work with the Health Department, Dr. Davis is a professor of pediatrics at the University of Vermont College of Medicine… She has been an attending physician at Fletcher Allen Health Care since 1987…

I don’t begrudge anyone the ability to work several jobs at once (personally, I work three, which is one of the reasons I haven’t been blogging so much lately), but when one’s on the public dime, it does raise questions.

Or maybe not.  Maybe it’s more important to just slash government programs and ask ourselves, really, who cares about the poor when we can make sure that Douglas’ top people live extremely well off of taxpayer’s dollars?

A few months ago, I posted what’s the purpose of a taser.  Today, we see a remarkably similar story:

In their ensuing struggle with Robinson, police said he began moving toward the knives. Post and another officer swept Robinson’s legs to knock him down, according to affidavits, but Post slipped on the beer-soaked floor and landed on a bottle.

With Robinson concealing his hands and continuing to resist, Post said he fired his Taser into the center of Robinson’s back. Robinson stopped fighting after a five-second burst and officers were able to cuff him…

We need an active policy about when and where to use tasers, and that policy needs to be held up to public scrutiny.

First, a simple definition, per Wikipedia:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge” or “knowing”) is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how natural phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates prediction.

There is an old story about blind men and an elephant.  Wikipedia reports it as follows:

In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one’s perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.

Many of us treat science similarly, only being willing to acknowledge part of reality because of having limited information and being too blind to see beyond what we think is true.

I will tell a brief version of a long story that I have referenced multiple times in recent months: last fall, I fell ill, and my doctor was convinced of what the illness was.  He was wrong about this and consistently wrong because he failed to seek the necessary data to get it diagnosed properly.  Multiple visits led him to misdiagnose the illness in multiple ways, to the point where I would point out and explain where the pain was and he’d repeat it back to me as though I had referenced a different location.  He had, for whatever reason, lost the interest in inquiry.  Once he came to a conclusion, he blinded himself to the process of science, to investigation.   This was dangerous and, if it hadn’t been caught in time, could have cost me a kidney.  

Science is not just something abstract.  It is something that we must do in order to appropriately respond to the world around us.

I frequently hear such phrases as “science tells us that…”

A good example of this comes from an anti-abortion group in Colorado:

What Science Tells Us

The Colorado Personhood Amendment has a very simple, easy-to-understand scientific basis that has been known by medical experts for years. Notice that many of the sources below are at least 20-30 years old. Each conclusion is firmly grounded in scientific and medical fact. There is not even a hint of uncertainty…what is stated below is known as clear fact in the medical community. Today, our incredible technology-including 3D and 4D ultrasounds provides “windows into the womb” and allows you and me to see for ourselves what doctors, geneticists, and embryologists have known for so long…that every preborn child is a unique individual; a living person. And shouldn’t our laws protect everyone?

This, of course, is a perfect example of what I’m talking about: people using “science” to describe what is, at its core, philosophy.

This is similar to what proponents of “intelligent design” would have us believe: the idea that their philosophy of what’s behind the evolutionary process is somehow “science.”

I think, though, that in promoting intelligent design or anti-abortion policies as though they are science, those who would oppose science as a discipline and replace it with a religious perspective are tipping their hands.  Their insistence upon presenting their views as science is a tacit admission that science is something of value.  They understand that science is better supported and has a stronger foundation in truth than their own arbitrary belief system, so they think that they can best promote their views by pretending they are science.

That’s why it’s crucial that we understand science for what it actually is.

I’m writing about this because I so often hear people talk about science as though it is a thing, an entity, a collective knowledge.  Science is, at its core, a process of inquiry.

Science is grounded in a process.  It’s grounded in the idea that theories need to be tested and that tests don’t prove or disprove theories but instead support or fail to support a given hypothesis.

I will use, for example, a self-serving theory.  Let’s suppose that I, being a short person, want to convince you that short people have faster motor responses than tall people.  

So my theory is that because we have a shorter path from the eye to the hand (in terms of neurons), that the shorter you are, the faster your response time to a visual stimuli will be.

That’s a theory.  But in order to test this theory, I need to collect data.  I need to define my terms and explain what I mean so that other people can also test this theory.

So I may decide to conduct an experiment, or do a survey or some other specific process that will collect the data I need to support or fail to support (*not* prove or disprove) my theory.  But you can’t collect data to support or reject a theory.  Theories are just ideas: vague concepts about the way the world works.  

What you need to support or reject is a hypothesis.  A hypothesis is a fairly simple thing that a lot of people have trouble grasping at first.  A hypothesis is simply a statement that:

1. is a prediction of what will happen in a given circumstance;
2. is either true or false;
3. can be tested through observation

So if my hypothesis were “short people have slower reflexes than tall people,” that would fail requirement #1 above.  If, instead, I said that “when tested for response time, there will be a strong positive correlation between height and response time,” I have a workable hypothesis.

It is a prediction, because it suggests what will happen in the future.  It is true or false: either the event will occur as I’ve described it or not.  It is testable (I will explain this in a moment).

If, on the other hand, my theory is that “an intelligent being is behind the theory of evolution,” there is no hypothesis I can use to test this.  I can create a hypothesis that fits the first two criteria (“when the intelligent being chooses to change the nature of a creature, the creature experiences a process of evolution”) but there is no observable test that we can use which verifies the existence of this intelligent being.

Remember, as well, that science doesn’t tell us whether or not God, or any other entity, exists.  Science is merely the process via which we determine what does and does not happen under a given circumstance.  We understand the process of gravity extremely well.  But we can’t say that gravity is not the finger of God holding us onto our home planet.  We can merely say that, whatever gravity is, all the evidence we’ve observed gives us a fairly strong and consistent understanding of what gravity does.  I.e., you pick up a chair.  You let go of the chair.  In most circumstances, it will fall down.  You drop a penny from on top of a building.  Not only do we understand what that penny will do.  We understand, given enough data, the exact velocity of that penny at any given second along its travels.  This is important because gravity induces not only speed, but acceleration.  The further something falls, the faster it gets.

So back to my hypothesis.  I can test my motor response hypothesis in a variety of ways, but I will pick an extremely low-tech approach: I do not use gadgets, gizmos, bells, whistles or any other such thing.  

In fact, I can test this theory with a yardstick and a blackboard, pencils and paper, and a group of students.  (I have, in fact, tested this very theory with my students many times).

I tell them to pair up.  Each pair gets a yardstick.  The rules are simple:

Each one writes down their height five times, each on a separate line.

Then they do as follows:

One student holds the yardstick up so it’s dangling down, with the “0” pointing down.

The other places a hand at the bottom of the yardstick, with fingers and thumb apart.  The subject then looks at the top of the yardstick and waits for his or her classmate to let go.  As soon as the drop takes place, the student tries to grasp the yardstick.  Then, you check to see what number on the centimeter marker the student’s thumb has hit, and write it down next to the student’s height.

You do this with twenty students and pretty soon you have enough to either support or fail to support the hypothesis: the faster the student’s response time, the lower that student’s numbers on this score will be.  You put this on a scatterplot (that’s where the chalkboard comes in) and you see whether or not you have any sort of real correlation between height and reflex time.

This is some of the simplest science there is, and still I have trouble explaining to people why this is science.

Too often, we mistake science for its products.  People, when they think of science, think technology.  But Mendel’s work on genetics is science, even though there was no electricity, no blinking lights, nothing that most of us would recognize as science today.  If, on the other hand, you have a high tech clock that looks very sci-fi-ish people think that it’s science.  It’s technology, and it’s pretty neat, but it’s not science:

Science is experimentation, exploration, and inquiry.  There is nothing wrong with religion, beliefs or philosophical questions.  But they are not science.

If, for example, you want to spend time inquiring and discussing when, if you continually add grains of sand to the same location, it is no longer a loose collection of grains of sand and, instead, a pile of sand, well that’s a neat question.  It is, however, not a scientific question.  It is a question of philosophy.  It is about how we conceptualize piles, and sand, and grains.  

The question over whether light is a wave or a particle, is something that does, to an extent, belong in the realm of science, but it’s still a philosophical question.  What’s important to scientists is not what we call the behavior of light, but what that behavior is.

There are people out there who will diminish what science is and what it means by trying to present non-science as science.  They want to diminish the meaning of it, by expanding it beyond the realm of reason.  

I believe in science because it is true.  It has meaning.  It has power.

I believe in science because it is our best possible means via which to find a way to survive the coming energy crisis.  

I believe in science because even if we are not always wise enough to understand what we learn from it, ignorance is worse.  

I believe in science because I would rather live in a world of honest inquiry than one of fear and hatred of the unknown.  

When I was a child, I had a dream that still terrifies me to this day.  I dreamed that I was in a bubble, blissfully happy, stupid and ignorant of all around me.  I dreamed that I was safe, secure, and brainless.  I awoke from that dream in a sweat, horrified by the thought of it.

I believe in science because, if it comes to it, I’d rather live a short life with my eyes wide open than a long life afraid to look, so sure of what I know because I’ve only felt the elephant’s trunk.  I’d rather live a life of inquiry, even if mixed with frustration and anger, than one of blissful ignorance and safe security.

I believe in science, and I believe that people who refuse to do so are a bigger threat than we acknowledge and more dangerous than we care to admit.

I believe in science, and I believe that those among us who don’t are waging a war against those among us who do.

So I guess I believe that science needs a battle cry, too.  

And hey, because to believe in science as much as I do, you have to be at least a little bit of a geek, I’m ready to pick my cry and shout it loud.

HYPOTHESIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZE.

Amen.

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

More than 100 Vermonters protesting Gov. James Douglas’ proposed budget cuts were met with heightened security at the Statehouse on Tuesday.

Mandatory bag checks at entrances, a bomb-sniffing dog on the first floor and an increased presence of security guards changed the atmosphere at the Statehouse as a coalition of organizations continued pressing lawmakers to reject Douglas’ cuts.

The article describes the security for the event as “vastly different than the same-sex marriage protest at the Statehouse last week,” which strikes me as funny because, despite what we’re told, same sex marriage is apparently not as scary as advocating for children.

Yes.  You heard me.  The protesters yesterday were advocates for children.  The group protesting was “Voices for Vermont’s Children.”

So here’s my question: in a budget crunch, with an economy that has the potential to cripple this state, how exactly do we determine how much money we’re going to spend on security?  Is this a wise use of our limited and dwindling funds?  Because it really doesn’t sound to me like this is about protecting anyone as much as it is about intimidation.