WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 14 Aug 09 Washington, DC

1. HOLY WAR: HAS IT FINALLY COME DOWN TO THIS?
On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times ran an opinion piece by Chris Mooney and
Sheril Kirschenbaum with the provocative title, "Must science declare a
holy war on religion?" They contrast the "in your face" style of Richard
Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, to the strategy of the National Center
for Science Education, which simply focuses on getting the facts right in
public science education. I love them both. Mooney and Kirschenbaum,
have just published, "Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy
threatens our future," (Basic Books). They take C.P. Snow's admonition
that "we require a common culture in which science is an essential
component," one step further. "Science itself," they conclude, "must
become the common culture." Good idea, how do we get there?

2. HOLY LITIGATION: THE NCSE HAS SHOWN US A BETTER WAY.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) gave us a demonstration in
Kitzmiller v. the Dover Area School District, December 20, 2005. Scientists
tend to be leery of courts; they don't think the way we do. But beneath
the wigs and doctoral hoods, we have some important things in common: we
both seek the truth, and we both believe the truth can only be determined
from the evidence. In Kitzmiller, science was pitted against revelation.
It was a mismatch. There are countless examples of the public being
defrauded by pseudoscience. We should view these cases as an opportunity.
It would help the public to understand the value of science in their lives,
even if we suffer an occasional bruise in the process. In the book,
Superstition: Belief In the Age of Science, I concluded that, "science is
the only way of knowing." The reviewer for Publisher's Weekly found that
offensive.

3. SCIENCE WARS: THE SIDE WITH THE BEST EVIDENCE WINS.
The courts are not interested in intervening in disputes between
scientists, for which we should be profoundly grateful. When there is such
a dispute, as in global warming, it should be a clear message to both sides
that better evidence is needed. Without it, the debate tends to become
somewhat religious. Meanwhile, some precautionary measures are in order.

4. SPACE TRAVEL: THEY AREN’T COMING HERE EITHER.
In my item about the Kepler telescope last week, I said "we will never
travel to another star." Several readers protested. As one said, "never
is a long time." It's also a long trip. I invite those who thought my
comment should have been qualified to carry out a calculation my class of
freshman physics majors does every year. Choose the nearest star; decide
how long you're willing to travel, how fast you will need to go to get
there in that time, what you will have to take with you, and how many
should be in the crew. Make it a one-way suicide mission if you wish. As
a final step, calculate the kinetic energy that must be imparted to the
spaceship to get you there in that time (one half the mass times the
velocity squared.) I suggest you stay away from the relativistic limit; it
complicates the calculation and won't help you anyway. The good news is
that you will then sleep secure in the knowledge that UFOs from elsewhere
in the galaxy are not subjecting humans to hideous experiments.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---
Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org
What's New is moving to a different listserver and our
subscription process has changed. To change your subscription
status please visit this link: