tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.comments2013-10-18T11:54:20.529-07:00Nathan Explains ScienceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-65440604933239184472013-08-12T03:24:26.401-07:002013-08-12T03:24:26.401-07:00This is cool!This is cool!Alvarohttp://bestrowingmachinereviews.us/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-51360935772591950162013-05-22T23:16:49.676-07:002013-05-22T23:16:49.676-07:00Ah, I see what you did there. And it's a good ...Ah, I see what you did there. And it's a good point.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-49948593895253613962013-05-22T15:35:41.066-07:002013-05-22T15:35:41.066-07:00I often feel like proximate cause is a dying conce...I often feel like proximate cause is a dying concept. At least, it feels that way from a defense perspective. Nikkihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598178089051450458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-7327837069759200862013-05-22T09:33:09.715-07:002013-05-22T09:33:09.715-07:00I am similarly worried. It's really easy for p...I am similarly worried. It's really easy for people to believe that one thing affects another when it's just spurious correlation — never mind that we're also likely to infer causation from correlation. <br /><br />Worse, more science in schools won't necessarily help — how many scientists, public policy researchers, and others understand that on average one out of every 20 studies that are statistically significant at conventional levels in social science are probably just noise?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-72377684832132296082013-05-22T09:23:40.429-07:002013-05-22T09:23:40.429-07:00I am increasingly worried about this and related s...I am increasingly worried about this and related subjectivity in science. I suspect that we "know" a lot of things that just aren't really true.MarcusCollinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09007702807887057023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-38254948745417986452013-02-25T15:51:09.950-08:002013-02-25T15:51:09.950-08:00one man's normale is another man's lungo.
...one man's normale is another man's lungo.<br />why won't you make me a normale? why do i have to drink it ristretto?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-47020556834638070472013-01-10T08:10:53.228-08:002013-01-10T08:10:53.228-08:00Can science predict violent behavior and help prev...Can science predict violent behavior and help prevent tragedies like Newtown, Connecticut? Science, as it usually does, has some surprising and kind of scary things to tell us. Apparently, no matter what kind of life you lead, scientists can still figure out who you'll be at 30 based on who you were as a toddler.<br /><br /><a href="http://predictscience.com" rel="nofollow">predict science</a> <br><br /><a href="http://predictscience.com" rel="nofollow">water pollution</a> <br><br /><a href="http://predictscience.com" rel="nofollow">who is edgar casey</a> <br><br /><a href="http://predictscience.com" rel="nofollow">cayce edga</a> <br><br /><a href="http://predictscience.com" rel="nofollow">are edgar cayce</a> <br><br /><a href="http://predictscience.com" rel="nofollow">what is the environment</a> <br><br /><a href="http://predictscience.com" rel="nofollow">environment topics</a> <br><br /><a href="http://predictscience.com" rel="nofollow">environment</a> <br><br /><a href="http://predictscience.com" rel="nofollow">seminar topics</a> <br>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01273994300297401909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-38639994670967590132012-12-29T22:38:08.521-08:002012-12-29T22:38:08.521-08:00I would love to read your take on these realizatio...I would love to read your take on these realizations of quantum effects in tiny-but-macroscopic systems:<br /><br />http://fuckyeahfluiddynamics.tumblr.com/post/14125079515/a-droplet-atop-a-vibrating-pool-is-prevented-from<br /><br />http://fuckyeahfluiddynamics.tumblr.com/post/39043737554Abihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06790560045313883673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-50849766167330004592012-12-28T21:44:55.020-08:002012-12-28T21:44:55.020-08:00Tornados! They are so fascinating. Tornados! They are so fascinating. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02289496134617433296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-13535091415503840142012-11-07T09:20:32.272-08:002012-11-07T09:20:32.272-08:00Great post. I was just looking up used Honda Accor...Great post. I was just looking up <a href="http://www.hondaoflosangeles.com/certified-inventory/index.htm" rel="nofollow">used Honda Accord</a>s in LA, that is how I came across your post. I am glad I did because I have never heard of carmageddon(I love the name, very funny)before. I would hate to be there. Thanks so much for sharing Nathan!<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15122599196657892636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-38722635027706379632012-11-06T08:41:14.347-08:002012-11-06T08:41:14.347-08:00How it is possible for.........How it is possible for.........Handheld Readershttp://www.bioassaysys.com/products.php?q=readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-6616258521457399762012-11-01T09:13:49.652-07:002012-11-01T09:13:49.652-07:00Generally speaking, that's true, though the go...Generally speaking, that's true, though the government does have some control over the economy, and quite a bit of control over road repairs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-10757787597549567482012-11-01T09:10:12.602-07:002012-11-01T09:10:12.602-07:00Looking to national government for intimate effect...Looking to national government for intimate effects on your daily life is a category error. back40https://www.blogger.com/profile/18437845580875439776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-38003092682327441352012-10-31T11:53:03.547-07:002012-10-31T11:53:03.547-07:00Thanks for the contribution, Joe. You've hit o...Thanks for the contribution, Joe. You've hit on two (or more) really interesting aspects of campaigns. First, most people feel pretty disconnected from most policy issues. While we often see pundits arguing about abortion, gay marriage, or something like that, most people just don't care that much. Asked to vote, they might go one way or the other, but these are not central issues to them. The economy, as you've suggested, is — maybe because it's sort of a prerequisite for getting anything else done.<br /><br />Second, politicians really do offer fairly ambiguous platforms in advertisements, stump speeches, and so forth, and for good reason. For one thing, most people don't want to hear it. In 2008, when Obama went off script, he often ended up giving detailed, often dull lectures on how to improve the economy or the merits the Iraq war. And everyone was bored. Not a good thing for a candidate to be. For another, there's evidence from researchers at UC Berkeley and Stanford that being ambiguous may benefit a candidate. (At some point I'll write more about that.)<br /><br />On the other hand, some people end up feeling disengaged and uninvested in the outcome of an election — everything seems so abstract and distant from our daily lives, so what's the point? Well, I think there's a point, but I understand why others would disagree.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-5308081732962890512012-10-30T13:31:24.712-07:002012-10-30T13:31:24.712-07:00You know, it looks almost like a sampling bias typ...You know, it looks almost like a sampling bias type of problem. If you aren't personally invested in one candidate/policy or another, then you can have a certain amount of faith that, regardless of the winner, things will continue more or less as they always have. Politics in DC have a way of taking a while to filter down to an average citizen. Unless you have a strong partisan allegiance to begin with, you don't have a strong incentive to spend the time to inform yourself and vote.<br /><br />To use a quick example, I'm in favor of gay marriage. On that point, I can make a clear distinction, falling in line with Barack Obama. But at the same time, as a straight man, those issues aren't important for me, personally. As much as I support them ideologically, I don't want to base my decision off of them, when there are other issues that impact me more directly, like the economy, specifically my job prospects once I get out of school. Most of the big arguments on this point have focused around corporate regulations, national debt, and the like, and all those points of policy feel at least 3 steps away from affecting my daily life. Regardless of who wins this election, I'm still going to spend the next four years going to class, studying, and generally going about my day. It feels like the actual impact of this election are going to filter down from policy through layers of corporations, businesses, and family/friends before it actually impacts my life. It's hard to get invested in this election when the issues at hand feel so far from me. Being that I'm pretty isolated from the actual effects, and am not too passionate about any of the philosophical arguments (either because the impacts are distant enough from me that I don't want to base a decision off of them, or because I'm not familiar enough with the issue.), I'm not particularly invested in this election. At least, I won't be until 2 years from now, when [disaster happens], and [president] fails to [appropriate response].<br /><br />This type of thinking seems to inform a lot of campaign rhetoric. Obama says Romney wants You to pay more for healthcare. Romney talks about how Obama wants to take You's money and give it to Not-You. It's all tailored to try to raise the stakes. You, listening to this speech, will face dire consequences for You and You's family if You doesn't vote for our side. Obama goes a step further, talking about how those wealthy people (Not-You) will foot the bill. Not in as many words, of course, and I'm grossly oversimplifying, but that's the message. The focus is always on “our policy will benefit You, and cost Not-You.” This isn't in and of itself a bad thing. If policy A is going to benefit me, then please tell me. The problem is that actual discussion of the plan gets swept away. It's the reason Romney has been so vague about the loopholes he would close to finance his economic plan. Being specific about where he's taking money from risks alienating people who are using that service. To an undecided voter, that information could really help push them into the Romney camp. He wouldn't even have to spend too much time on it. Post a big list of loopholes on his website, and the blogosphere would spread it for him. But the risk of alienating his base is high enough that he can't afford to do that.<br /><br />Wow that's a lot of words. I hate to quit on a complaining note, but I'm 10 characters under the maximum allowed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17576507819032431321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-15499999061592219062012-10-15T10:13:17.327-07:002012-10-15T10:13:17.327-07:00Perhaps the causality does truly go both ways. An...Perhaps the causality does truly go both ways. And perhaps those who know Jesus better are influenced by what they know of him and those who don't know him well project their own opinions onto him. Just a thought.lachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06966266764719582910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-72059540279099415152012-09-19T13:55:59.357-07:002012-09-19T13:55:59.357-07:00I'm inclined to think that the release was del...I'm inclined to think that the release was delayed for political impact. Carter's anger at attack ads doesn't ring true as an explanation for choosing this particular moment. The put-togetherness of Democratic activists and campaigners contrasts more and more with the gaffe-prone GOP.Lukehttp://www.facebook.com/luke.gering/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-29884188990412373512012-09-18T21:15:45.517-07:002012-09-18T21:15:45.517-07:00Those are some good points, Luke. As far as politi...Those are some good points, Luke. As far as political impact, one question is timing: this is a bigger deal coming when it does, just a few months before the election. In Obama's case, the video came out well before he was actually the nominee. <br /><br />And I agree, it's no better if he actually does care about that 47% if he'll throw them under the bus when it's expedient — and that's been something dogging Romney for much of his political career. In an election like this one — so-so economy, close race — such things could matter. So maybe Romney taking a shot at half of Americans will make a difference. We'll see what the polling data says in the days to come.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-37374088160932637502012-09-18T18:17:40.130-07:002012-09-18T18:17:40.130-07:00This story looks like it's dropped a lot harde...This story looks like it's dropped a lot harder than the Obama oops, so even if they're comparable mistakes, Romney's seems like it'll matter more. Plus, Obama has/had little to lose by alienating gun-toting religious voters; Romney has a lot to lose by alienating voters who don't pay income tax: Most of them vote Republican.<br /><br />Far from being a red herring, the "hope and change" message implicitly references a bad status quo. After all, who wants to change from a good situation? Note how Romney subtly co-opts the slogan in the above quote and elsewhere: He too is trying to beat an incumbent party in a bad economy.<br /><br />I told my dad Romney was pandering, as if to excuse him, and my dad said the same thing I was thinking: Politicians, and especially presidential candidates, always need to have the entire voting public in the backs of their minds when they tailor their message to anyone. Regardless of how sincere Romney was, the simple fact that he made this screwup reflects poorly on him. Besides, is it really better if he actually loves the 47% and is just lying through his teeth for campaign donations?Lukehttp://www.facebook.com/luke.geringnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-55039758721695134482012-09-15T20:33:55.737-07:002012-09-15T20:33:55.737-07:00Thanks! And I do reply to reader comments, so if y...Thanks! And I do reply to reader comments, so if you've got questions, feel free to ask!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-47886132779488738662012-09-14T13:16:13.814-07:002012-09-14T13:16:13.814-07:00WOW! My uncle gave me a link to this blog when i a...WOW! My uncle gave me a link to this blog when i asked him on the subject, he is fond of that kind of stuff.<br />And it turned out better that I expected! And none of Cardenas side effects, which is wonderful!sitehttp://www.ipanm.org/article.php/Natural_Gas_Transportationnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-53722941901377599552012-09-11T10:18:37.289-07:002012-09-11T10:18:37.289-07:00Politicians are often pretty skeptical of this sor...Politicians are often pretty skeptical of this sort of research, especially when it comes to political science. What they do seem to be interested in — and I have only anecdotal evidence of this — is marketing research, i.e., they want to know how to appeal to voters. And there is some overlap between marketing and political science, mainly in that both involve communications. <br /><br />At the same time, there was a recent push to get the National Science Foundation to stop funding political science research, a topic about which I recently wrote.<br /><br />I think the key distinction is that political scientists often want to study questions like whether average people can have an impact on politics — not something politicians necessarily want people to know — in addition to questions about who gets elected.<br /><br />But many politicians are also just skeptical of scientific research in general. Not being scientists themselves or even necessarily that educated, they don't see the connections between basic science and their own daily lives. For scientists, it's exactly the opposite — science and its impact on our lives is all around us.<br /><br />As for party-funded research, I'm not aware of any research that the parties fund directly. There are, of course, left- and right-leaning think tanks, such as Heritage and Brookings, that have strong partisan affiliations. These organizations tend to focus on ideologically-motivated policy research rather than what gets someone elected.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-88238765650380912312012-09-10T21:28:19.631-07:002012-09-10T21:28:19.631-07:00I would think that politicians would be interested...I would think that politicians would be interested in that type of research for the purpose of gaining votes. Don't they care about what could make people vote for them---what positions on the ballot to try and get, or what people to invest in as the those with the most potential ballot return?<br /><br />Are their any party funded private research groups that work on this stuff?<br /><br />Is this type of politically related social science being quelled more than other science or just in general with the rest of the sciences?ben s.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-330104093117150592012-08-20T20:29:14.767-07:002012-08-20T20:29:14.767-07:00Christine, I question that premise, too, though on...Christine, I question that premise, too, though on average teachers seem to get better over time — the interesting question is whether there are a lot of teachers who don't grow at all, don't you think?<br /><br />Marcus — the scary part is that the bad and inexperienced teachers are assigned to the students who are performing at the lowest levels, and often those are the kids in the least wealthy schools.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722092273431720361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375684602371061139.post-47005659839435665882012-08-16T21:31:56.088-07:002012-08-16T21:31:56.088-07:00Do you know what they are percentiling against? I...Do you know what they are percentiling against? If the median new teacher is already at the 50th percentile or so, then either the rank is amongst only new teachers, or, as you say, there are some fantastically bad new teachers. <br /><br />But there's a deeper problem with this: it is almost certainly always true. To wit: teachers "added value" will fall on a distribution. New teachers also have some distribution. Unless these distributions do not overlap (i.e., all new teachers are worse than experienced teachers), the graph you posted will always be true, independent of any statement on teacher quality. It is simply a mathematical statement that the distributions overlap, and that teachers at the bottom of the pack do not improve fast enough to "catch" the best of the new cohort of teachers. You can always pick your groups so that will be true, even if all of the teachers were of excellent quality on an absolute scale. The only way it isn't necessarily true, I think, is if teachers improve faster and faster over time, which seems absurd in the long term.<br /><br />And to Theresa: yes, there's feedback. In my indirect experience, bad kids do frequently get shuffled off to "lesser" teachers. The "good" teachers have more pull, and some less than ethical types get those kids transferred out of their class, which also tends to make them look like they're a more effective teacher than they actually are.MarcusCollinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09007702807887057023noreply@blogger.com