The Professor's Notes

Well, apparently Truthiness is winning many “Word of the Year” competitions. You may recall, class, that I have often pointed to The Language Log as a great place to visit. Thanks be to them for pointing out this news.
So why blog on this? Well, as you all are aware, Truthiness is a Stephen Colbert travesty thatrefers “to the quality by which a person claims to know something intuitively, instinctively, or “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts.” (Reference, Wikipedia–I know I know, I don’t let you use it on OFFICIAL papers, but hey, the truthiness of using Wiki makes sense here)

Given this definition, it seems somehow “right” that a non-word wins as Word of the Year. It’s got that “gut feel” to it that says it should win. Heck, that it must win. Forget that it isn’t a word, or that it is (according to the same Wiki definition) simply a recasting in Colbert fashion, a concept Orwell described in his creation of the word “bellyfeel.”

Ahh, well.

It’s not every day that I get to write a blog that essentially “corrects” a story from the Russian News and Information Agency, but today, I thought I would quickly write a note about what is perhaps a simple, yet significant, error.

In a story, titled “Russia to join U.S. lunar exploration program if funded” the author of the story writes “The permanently sunlit half of the Moon opens up good opportunities for electricity generation, and comet ice deposited in craters can be converted into breathable air, drinking water and even liquid rocket propellants.” So what’s the problem with the science here? What had me checking my facts?

I think I will take advantage of the “read more” feature here, and tell you what is “wrong” if you click through! Check and see if you are right! Read the rest of this entry »

My brother has chosen to poke the hornet’s nest, by writing about Richard Dawkins, and his apparent attack on no lesser figure than God Himself. Prior to his posting, he and I had several conversations about this topic, and the broader view that there is a strong “anti-religion” movement amongst the scientific world as of late. His post has resulted in several comments, and conversations between him and a commenter, Tim.

I decided to weigh in with this podcast, since I had recently heard two interviews with Dr Dawkins. The first was on Science Friday on NPR. In that interview he asserts that science has all but proven that God does not exist. The other interview was on one of my other favorite podcasts, The New Scientist. His views are a bit more muted in that interview, but that whole episode was dedicated to the battle between science and religion.

I have several excerpts in this podcast from both of those shows, and share my thoughts on how assumptions shape and shade research and the conclusions that one reaches. I do recommend that you go listen to the full shows, and perhaps even subscribe to the podcasts. They are quite good!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download