Some thoughts on the sad state of contemporary political discourse and freedom of expression.
Teaching techniques on patients who can actually provide feedback.
What a concept. I’m continually amazed at the stupid things the medical profession does, just because “that’s how we’ve always done it.” I also think there remains a lot of rampant sexism in the profession, with deleterious effects on womens’ health.
Thoughts from Tim Ball on ad homimem and ad verecundiam.
Are they impeded in their work by their refusal to accept evolutionary psychology?
In short, yes. It’s part of the Left’s war on science, and its war on human nature. If people aren’t tabula rasas, how are we to create the New Soviet Man?
[Update a few minutes later]
This is interesting:
On an optimistic note, Buss and von Hippel point out that their survey found that a substantial minority of social psychologists did endorse findings rooted in evolutionary biology. But still there is a long way to go until the schism in psychological and theoretical perspectives is bridged – a situation they believe is likely made worse by the lack of proper training in evolutionary sciences in psychology*. “Not a single degree-granting institution in the United States, to our knowledge, requires even a single course in evolutionary biology as part of a degree in psychology,” they write, adding that this is “an astonishing educational gap that disconnects psychology from the rest of the life sciences.”
I hadn’t been aware of this, but it’s one more reason to not take the field seriously.
Anthony Watts is having fun with it.
I continue to be amazed at people who continue to attempt to compare landing a probe on another planet to predicting something as complex as the climate and the economy eight decades from now.
Bjorn Lomborg: What the media got all wrong about the report.
Pretty much everything.
[Update Friday morning]
“The NCA’s projections are simply not borne out by the data.”
How the Trump administration blew it on the NCA:
The Administration now has a problem since some Democrats say they will use the report to oppose a number of the Trump Administration’s attempts to weaken a number of the Obama climate regulations that they have proposed, including using the report to persuade courts to reinstate the original Obama Administration regulations. All this was quite foreseeable. So why did the Administration publish the report without reviewing it? Was it because it was not paying attention to what the bureaucracy was doing? This is hard to believe, but appears now to be the case. One obvious possibility is that they wanted to avoid the charge that they had “corrupted” the report writing process. But the costs are likely to be high. Another possibility is that Acting Administrator Wheeler did not want to endure questions about possible intervention at his confirmation hearing. But the evidence appears to suggest inattention by the Trump Administration was the major problem.
You don’t say.
It’s everywhere, and the media eats it up.
This article is sort of amazing in its complete lack of discussion of the keto revolution, and its old timey referrals to “diet” and “exercise” and calories.
Myths versus facts, from Nina Teicholz:
I think the larger question is why we are seeing such a sudden rash of anti-keto stories. So many of them quote no experts [sic] sources and do not provide citations for their claims. Skeptics with little acquaintance with the diet are quoted exclusively instead. From a journalistic perspective, this lack of balance of viewpoints and the failure to back up claims with evidence falls below basic reporting standards. Offenders on this list include even the Harvard School of Public Health, which recently published more than one unsourced, one-sided article on the keto diet (This is in addition to the Lancet Public Health article cited above, by Harvard researchers, which suggests that a low-carb diet kills you). These stories could reflect lazy reporting or they could very well be scare tactics to steer people away from the keto diet. Why would reporters or scientists at Harvard be doing such a thing? That’s material for another post. Stay tuned.
I’ll look forward to her thesis.
A worthy cause.
As I’ve noted on Twitter several times, expertise in removing bullets from bodies does not confer any policy knowledge of how to prevent them from being inserted.