G.O.P. Support of Ignorance . . .

Here's a very good op-ed by Paul Krugman on G.O.P. antagonism toward science, knowledge, and critical thinking. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignorance-caucus.html?_r=0

The official time . . .

Here's something you may find useful, the National Institute of Standards and Technology time widget:

Crisis in Education . . .

Here are some thoughts from Bill Gates on the importance of education in today's America:


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/our-college-crisis-a-powerpoint-presentation-by-bill-gates/265283/?goback=.gde_1297607_member_187115997

Earth's Magnetic Field Reversal

Around 41 kya,  Earth's magnetic field did a quick, temporary reversal:




Here's the link to the article: http://www.space.com/18202-earth-magnetic-field-reversal.html

Conservapedia:

Rachel Maddow brought a fascinating website to my attention.  If you want to see the fundamentalist lunatic fringe at full charge, take a look:

http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

House Anti-Science Committee:

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology seems to be loaded up with Republican Congressmen who don't believe in science!! First we have Todd Akin, who believes that women can't get pregnant from rape and that doctors perform many abortions on women who aren't pregnant (!). Then we have Dr. Paul Broun, an M.D. no less, who has proclaimed "evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are 'lies straight from the pit of hell'." What on earth are the Republican leadership thinking?? There are more.  These people, who clearly neither understand nor have any respect for science, are totally unqualified to serve on a committee overseeing it. And this country cannot afford to have its science education and research policy driven into the ground by such ignorant fools!  Here's another commentary:
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/08/least_scientific_members_of_the_house_science_committee/

Regarding hypotheses:

A hypothesis is an explanation proposed for a set of observed data.  Why do we see the pattern that appears to be there?  Any hypothesis is only as good as the last piece of supporting data.  A hypothesis can never be proven, only supported or refuted.  Which brings up a problem that is all too common.  A good scientist is led by the data.  That means one does not set out to find data to support a proposed hypothesis.  Doing so leads to ignoring data that don't.  One collects data relevant to the question that is of concern and then tries to figure out an explanation that fits.  If the data don't fit the original hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong, the data are bad, or both.  You have to figure out which and adjust accordingly.  And you are obligated to continue to collect data to test and retest the hypothesis.