More misunderstood science

Having just sat through a Sunday school lesson where science was the bad guy because scientist "know everything" and "change their minds about things all the time," this particular discussion comes at a perfect time to annoy me. I'm going to frame my discussion in terms of models, where models are the mental images we have of the world around us. In science it is understood, first of all, that ultimately our explanations are just models, and second of all, that our models are in many ways incomplete and wrong. We expand and correct our models using hypotheses, which are tested by experiment, observation, and measurement. It is also understood that there exist multiple working hypotheses--multiple, equally probable explanations that we should take into account and, in a well-conceived experiment, distinguish between. Scientific models, because of their connection to experiments and observations, must be directly tied to the physical world around us (except for physicists--they're special. J/K, Clark). Does that connection make us conceited about our knowledge? Maybe. I'm sure it looks that way from the outside. We really do have a lot of confidence in a lot of our models, including evolution, and that probably comes off as conceit. Evolution has withstood an awful lot of testing, so we're really rather confident it's correct. As confident as we are in many models, every scientist acknowledges that there are likely to be refinements, or even occasionally replacements of widely believed models when a new theory comes along that has better explanatory power. I'd say evolution is unlikely to be overturned completely by a new theory simply because it does do such a good job explaining what we see in the natural world. That said, if sufficiently convincing evidence were to come forward that something else were behind the diversity of life we observe, scientists would eventually accept the new model.

Religion is also a model, but unlike a scientific model, it need not be verifiable by independent experiments. In fact, the nature of faith precludes the possibility of independent verification of most beliefs. Whatever evidence underlies your faith (and physical evidence is certainly a valid part of faith for many!) your model is not one that can be verified or invalidated by someone else. Just isn't possible. Religious belief is still a model, though, and there are certainly aspects of your model, my model, everyone's models, that are incomplete or incorrect. Our culture seeps into our religious models, staining those models with baggage that has no eternal significance, and yet seems terribly important to us standing at this time and in this place. Because we are not privy to the thoughts of Deity, we have no concrete, independently verifiable way of removing those unnecessary bits for ourselves and for everyone else. It's also more or less impossible to get everyone to agree on a religious model--even within a religion! If you doubt that, just try getting a bunch of people to agree on what the true nature of God is.

Unfortunately, a lot of non-scientists seem to think it's appropriate to apply a religious model to a scientific model. It's not. In fact, it's incredibly conceited to think that it's appropriate. Because scientists are aware that our models are incomplete and incorrect, we are willing to modify, and even throw out models when they fail to accurately reflect reality as measured by experiment and observation. I find such mental flexibility much more often lacking in those of a more religious persuasion, particularly when it comes to a religious model.

Misunderstanding Science, 101

This is just silly. On year erases a 100 year trend? Learn to read a graph before trying to interpret it, please. The graph in question shows monthly global temperatures from the HadCRUT data set for the last 250 months--or, from 1988 to January of this year. The temperature anomaly decreases to about where it was at 100 months from the beginning of 1988, or about 150 months ago. For those who are counting, that means global average temperatures are today about what they were in 1996 or '97. Yep, a whole decade. For even better graphs that show exactly how unremarkable this year is for the last 30 years, see this or read the original and follow-up posts that started the whole brew-ha-ha.

If you're going to deny the science, please at least understand what you're saying.

Listen, Mr. Bilbo

I learn something new every day. I just learned from the comments to this thoughtful, well-written, and itself informative editorial that illegal immigration is a civil offense, not a criminal one. Therefore, the statement that illegal immigrants are criminals is false. They can be fined or imprisoned for evading immigration, but it's a civil statute, not a criminal one.

The responses to the editorial are about as virulent and bigoted as you'd expect--people in Utah are no better at treating undocumented immigrants with respect than people in the rest of the country, the pleas of our leaders notwithstanding. What's sad is that people seem to have no idea that they are acting in just as bigoted a manner as their predecessors 150 years ago.

Porcelain

I've decided that my motivation must be something like El Nino--periodically I get motivated, work hard, get things done, and feel much satisfaction with my job, leading to even more motivation and hard work. (During an El Nino year the East Pacific warms, shutting down upwelling and causing stronger easterlies, which push more warm water into the East Pacific.) Nice example of positive feedback. Unfortunately, there's also positive feedback for the opposite motivation state, in which I lack motivation, don't work hard, don't accomplish much, and find my scarce motivation slipping further and further. Wish I knew how to get into the other motivation state more easily.

Pure Morning

My grandma Mimi sent me the coolest thing last week--a bag with "Well-behaved women seldom make history" emblazoned across it. I took it with me to church and only a couple of people noticed it, but both thought it was great. The phrase is the title of Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's newest book, which I lent to Mimi after reading it myself. I bought the book after listening to her on the Diane Rehm show, which I was directed to by a blog post on this post at times and seasons. Listening to her speak was fascinating--her voice has the cadence of a General Relief Society President speaking in General Conference, but her words were definitely not those of your typical RS president. I loved the book, especially the last chapter, where Ulrich talks about her involvement in the Exponent II and the women's movement in the 70's. It's a pretty easy read and full of women who are definitely worthy of remembrance, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich especially!

I know that my Redeemer lives

I don't usually cry over people I've never met, but today, right now, I can't stop the tears streaming down my cheeks, nor do I want to. I am glad I'm watching President Hinkley's funeral alone.

President Hinkley was a great man. Still is, though in spirit form, of course. He, over his lifetime, has done so much to shape the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints into what it is today. I have been touched by the many tributes to his accomplishments, from his first assignment after his mission, rewriting missionary materials, and later work updating teaching and publicity materials; establishment of the Perpetual Education Fund to interrupt the cycle of poverty for those members living in third-world nations; the establishment of 124 functioning temples across the world (the 125 to be dedicated this month), and the acquisition and restoration of many sites important in church history; to his many writings and his eternal optimism. He has done so much, so tirelessly, and with such humility that I know I didn't comprehend how much of an impact he's had.

Just a few reactions while watching the coverage of the funeral and graveside service--I love the story Elder Tingey just told about Pres. Hinkley taking the stairs--that's classic! Walking down the hall, cane clicking along, and right past the open elevator to climb the stairs to his office. I'm glad he's shared the sentiment Pres. Hinkley shared with him, asking, Have you remembered the person who is struggling?

It's an amazingly beautiful day in Salt Lake, with a clear blue sky and clean white snow dusting the ground. Very appropriate.

I will just quote this one statement among many that I think encapsulates the message of Pres. Hinkley's Earthly life.

“The time has come for us to stand a little taller, to lift our eyes and stretch our minds to a greater comprehension and understanding of the grand millennial mission of this, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
( Conference Report, Apr. 1995, 95.)

Go with peace, President Hinkley. We love you and will miss you.

Jumper

When I was a little girl I remember loving to watch the Miss America pageant. In fact, the opening scene in Little Miss Sunshine, where Olive is watching the pageant and rehearsing the signature wave is a disturbingly nostalgic moment for me to watch. I, too, wanted to win a pageant and be a Beauty Queen when I was a little girl. But much like Olive, I didn't have what it took, even if I'd had the support of a druggie grandfather and absent-minded parents. By the time I was a pre-teen I'd figured out that I would never be tall enough or beautiful enough to be a beauty queen and turned my efforts to other pursuits.

That said, I still like to watch sometimes. It's fun to see beautiful women competing to see who is the most beautiful (whatever that really means). I really wish I had TV this season, though, to watch the TLC's Miss America: Reality check. I'm glad the pageant organizers aren't taking it too seriously. Of course, there are some who aren't happy about the satire, like Lois Elaine Smith-Zoll.

"I want them to be professional ladies," said Lois Elaine Smith-Zoll, a 70-year-old pageant volunteer from Vancouver, Washington, with 41 years of judging behind her. "They are mocking the old system. This young woman is going to represent our country, we want to be proud of her."

I can understand the desire to want the contestants to be ladies, and I am definitely glad that they take the position of role-model seriously. Really, though, if you want these young women to remain relevant to the tweens and teens of today, you're going to have to make them hip and cool, and a little more edgy. Decorum is great, but the young women of today need someone they'd like to hang out with, not just admire from a distance.