Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Katrina's Lessons
Hurricane Katrina has taught us several lessons, how well will we learn?
Some lessons are very personal. Am I prepared to survive for 3 days faced with a catastrophic collapse of infrastructure? No. I'm not in an area that is subject to flooding, so that's OK. I've got a way to communicate when faced with disruptions of electrical service, telephone, and cell phone (ham radio). I can easily endure several days without electricity; our heat and cook stove are propane. The bottom line, however, is that I don't have enough non-perishable food and water supplies. I'm going to work on that. On the web, the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service has a nice an simple menu and shopping list for a 3-day supply. There are some basic guidelines:
The other lesson is a much broader and simpler one, but it has deep implications for our society. It is a lesson best seen through the lens of geologic time and the global climate changes the collective we are starting to recognize. First off, coastlines are ephemeral. They are places to visit, but they are constantly in flux. Maybe they should all be parks. In the aftermath of the tsunami in Banda, Ache, the coastal parklands suffered the least damage. Remember the lesson of building a house on sand also applies to casinos.
Secondly, what does this tell us about the consequences of global warming? Climate scientists have warned of sea level rise and an increased frequency and power of hurricanes as ocean surface water temperature rises. Not only has Earth's climate been significantly warmer than it is now (the Cretaceous for example), but geologists know where that ancient coastline was. Along the east coast, that coast line is known as the "fall line" where the topography undergoes a transition from the Appalachian Mountains to a flat, "coastal" plain. The Jackson Purchase region of western Kentucky is in that Cretaceous seaway. Millions of years ago, Paducah would have been in a swampy lowland similar the modern environment of New Orleans.
I'll finish with two questions to consider. Under what circumstances would you decide to "ride it out" rather than evacuate? Hurricanes don't sneak up on anyone so, for those who can't evacuate (ill health, no transportation, and the like) should the public transportation resources be marshaled to this task? (It may have happened, but I saw no news stories about this.)
Some lessons are very personal. Am I prepared to survive for 3 days faced with a catastrophic collapse of infrastructure? No. I'm not in an area that is subject to flooding, so that's OK. I've got a way to communicate when faced with disruptions of electrical service, telephone, and cell phone (ham radio). I can easily endure several days without electricity; our heat and cook stove are propane. The bottom line, however, is that I don't have enough non-perishable food and water supplies. I'm going to work on that. On the web, the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service has a nice an simple menu and shopping list for a 3-day supply. There are some basic guidelines:
- At least one gallon of water per person per day.
- Canned goods require 3 cans per person per day.
- Rotate supplies every six months.
- Canned meat (chili, stew, ham, spaghetti sauce, etc), fish, fruit, vegetables, soup (ready to eat varieties that don't require adding water)
- MECHANICAL CAN OPENER and "church key"
- Coffee, tea, powdered sport drink, dehydrated milk
- Crackers
- Cheese (hard cheeses with wax coatings that don't require refrigeration)
- Snacks: nuts, peanut butter, dried fruit, beef jerky, granola bars, trail mix
- Instant hot cereal
- Pasta
- Dried beans
- Salt, pepper, sugar, honey
- Pots, pans (compact mess kit variety as sold for camping)
- Eating (plastic forks, spoons, knives) and cooking (spatula, carving knife, fork) utensils
- Paper towels, plates, cups, aluminum foil, self-closing plastic storage bags, garbage bags
- Matches, candles, batteries, flashlights
- Antibacterial wipes or hand cleaning gel (of course, a First Aid Kit)
- Battery or self-powered radio (solar or hand-cranked). Get one that receives the sound from local TV channels.
- Raingear, blankets
The other lesson is a much broader and simpler one, but it has deep implications for our society. It is a lesson best seen through the lens of geologic time and the global climate changes the collective we are starting to recognize. First off, coastlines are ephemeral. They are places to visit, but they are constantly in flux. Maybe they should all be parks. In the aftermath of the tsunami in Banda, Ache, the coastal parklands suffered the least damage. Remember the lesson of building a house on sand also applies to casinos.
Secondly, what does this tell us about the consequences of global warming? Climate scientists have warned of sea level rise and an increased frequency and power of hurricanes as ocean surface water temperature rises. Not only has Earth's climate been significantly warmer than it is now (the Cretaceous for example), but geologists know where that ancient coastline was. Along the east coast, that coast line is known as the "fall line" where the topography undergoes a transition from the Appalachian Mountains to a flat, "coastal" plain. The Jackson Purchase region of western Kentucky is in that Cretaceous seaway. Millions of years ago, Paducah would have been in a swampy lowland similar the modern environment of New Orleans.
I'll finish with two questions to consider. Under what circumstances would you decide to "ride it out" rather than evacuate? Hurricanes don't sneak up on anyone so, for those who can't evacuate (ill health, no transportation, and the like) should the public transportation resources be marshaled to this task? (It may have happened, but I saw no news stories about this.)
Thursday, August 25, 2005
ID is not science
Advocates of intelligent design criticize evolution by pointing out gaps in scientific knowledge. The wedge of intelligent design is then driven into these gaps by arguing that if something is complex then God did it. Intelligent design is not science or a theory. It is a subterfuge to replace science with a specific religious ideology.
The origin of life and how the chemical sequence for clotting blood evolved are complex questions. It is unlikely molecular biologists will determine their exact evolution. This admission is not a weakness of evolution. What is relevant, and what has been experimentally demonstrated, is that such transitions are possible within the framework of evolution.
Evolution is a solidly grounded scientific theory. That doesn’t mean that there are no questions left to answer. Evolution makes predictions about those gaps. Mammal-like reptiles with transitional jaw hinge structures exist in time and place between early reptiles and later mammals. Fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found. These and many other transitional sequences demonstrate that if you look hard enough, given the vagaries of preservation and luck, missing links will be found.
Religion does not belong in a science classroom. Don’t be fooled by the appellation “intelligent designer.” In public, some advocates of intelligent design claim the designer might be a member of an alien culture who visited Earth, a speculation with no evidence. In private, you can be assured that none of the proposition’s adherents think the designer might be Marduk, Brahma, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Letter to the Editor published in the Lexington Herald-Leader 9/4/05.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
On Intelligent Design
Cobb County, GA, Dover, PA, and the President all have the topic of intelligent design on their mind. A recent editorial in the Lexington Herald-Leader (it's in their archives, you'll have to search) prompted me to pen a reply to the Editor. Here it is:
In her guest editorial (Sunday, August 21), Jennifer Kasten stated, "Science is narrowly defined here, referring solely to what might be investigated empirically." Ms Kasten is wrong. From Merriam-Webster's dictionary empirical means: 1) originating in or based on observation or experience and 2) relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory. It is unquestioning acceptance of empirical evidence that lends credibility to such beliefs as casting bones, reading entrails, astrology, homeopathic medicine, and countless others. Throughout the history of humanity, any number of beliefs have arisen that promise to better the human condition through some means. Science has been the most successful because it imposes a very structured framework for determining which empirical data are "real" and not the product all-too-human frailties. Science demands that advocates of creationism or intelligent design abide by the rules of science, not because scientists are all atheists, not to play semantic games, not to be somehow unfair or closed minded, but rather to ensure that any claims made are not fraudulent, the product of self-delusion, or otherwise in error. Changing the rhetoric of intelligent design will not validate the proposition.
An excellent summary of evolution as science and the motives behind promoting intelligent design by Jerry Coyne is in the current issue of New Republic. A version of the article called The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name is posted at Ocnus.net.
In her guest editorial (Sunday, August 21), Jennifer Kasten stated, "Science is narrowly defined here, referring solely to what might be investigated empirically." Ms Kasten is wrong. From Merriam-Webster's dictionary empirical means: 1) originating in or based on observation or experience and 2) relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory. It is unquestioning acceptance of empirical evidence that lends credibility to such beliefs as casting bones, reading entrails, astrology, homeopathic medicine, and countless others. Throughout the history of humanity, any number of beliefs have arisen that promise to better the human condition through some means. Science has been the most successful because it imposes a very structured framework for determining which empirical data are "real" and not the product all-too-human frailties. Science demands that advocates of creationism or intelligent design abide by the rules of science, not because scientists are all atheists, not to play semantic games, not to be somehow unfair or closed minded, but rather to ensure that any claims made are not fraudulent, the product of self-delusion, or otherwise in error. Changing the rhetoric of intelligent design will not validate the proposition.
An excellent summary of evolution as science and the motives behind promoting intelligent design by Jerry Coyne is in the current issue of New Republic. A version of the article called The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name is posted at Ocnus.net.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
I Believe
Conversations on one's back porch navigate a variety of topics. I did threaten to address both science issues and "stuff." So...
Two statements are causing a lot of trouble these days: "I believe in God;" and, "I believe in evolution." The assertion being argued across our nation is that these statements are somehow mutually exclusive.
believe 1) To accept as true or real, 2) To credit with veracity.
Based on these definitions, the two statements appear to have an equal standing. Applying the principle of parsimony (Ockham's Razor) we all know science, and evolution in particular, are difficult. The reasonable (and reasoning) person, could therefore take the simplest of the two statements: I believe in God. The explanation for everything is "God did it," and that is all we have to know.
The statements, however, are not mutually exclusive and it is possible to accept both. It is the common usage of the word, believe, that obscures the matter. Every individual constructs a view of the universe and the way it works by relying on senses, personal experiences, values, and the experiences of others. Each of us has a paradigm that structures our interaction with the world. We accept things about the world for differing reasons. One reason is faith, a belief accepted as true in the absence of logical proof or material evidence. The other reason hinges on what we consider proof or evidence.
People tend to accept as evidence those statements that reinforce their world view (beliefs). Evidence may be accepted for many reasons. For example, some persons advocating the veracity of UFOs and alien abductions accept that aliens have inserted small metal rods into the noses (brains?) of abductees. This statement is tenaciously defended and is said to be proof of alien abductions, even though no medical evidence of such devices has ever been found.
In considering some proposition, scientists rely on evidence collected under a rigourous set of rules adopted specifically to avoid the difficulties of intentional fraud, self-delusion, negligence, bias, and any number of human frailties or instrumental error. So, when a scientist says "I believe in evolution," what is implied is "I accept that the preponderance of evidence gathered, peer reviewed, and published according to accepted scientific practice supports the theory of evolution." This certainly leaves plenty of room for faith, so the same scientist may also say without compromise, "I believe in God."
Two statements are causing a lot of trouble these days: "I believe in God;" and, "I believe in evolution." The assertion being argued across our nation is that these statements are somehow mutually exclusive.
believe 1) To accept as true or real, 2) To credit with veracity.
Based on these definitions, the two statements appear to have an equal standing. Applying the principle of parsimony (Ockham's Razor) we all know science, and evolution in particular, are difficult. The reasonable (and reasoning) person, could therefore take the simplest of the two statements: I believe in God. The explanation for everything is "God did it," and that is all we have to know.
The statements, however, are not mutually exclusive and it is possible to accept both. It is the common usage of the word, believe, that obscures the matter. Every individual constructs a view of the universe and the way it works by relying on senses, personal experiences, values, and the experiences of others. Each of us has a paradigm that structures our interaction with the world. We accept things about the world for differing reasons. One reason is faith, a belief accepted as true in the absence of logical proof or material evidence. The other reason hinges on what we consider proof or evidence.
People tend to accept as evidence those statements that reinforce their world view (beliefs). Evidence may be accepted for many reasons. For example, some persons advocating the veracity of UFOs and alien abductions accept that aliens have inserted small metal rods into the noses (brains?) of abductees. This statement is tenaciously defended and is said to be proof of alien abductions, even though no medical evidence of such devices has ever been found.
In considering some proposition, scientists rely on evidence collected under a rigourous set of rules adopted specifically to avoid the difficulties of intentional fraud, self-delusion, negligence, bias, and any number of human frailties or instrumental error. So, when a scientist says "I believe in evolution," what is implied is "I accept that the preponderance of evidence gathered, peer reviewed, and published according to accepted scientific practice supports the theory of evolution." This certainly leaves plenty of room for faith, so the same scientist may also say without compromise, "I believe in God."
Monday, August 15, 2005
Eating Anything
One of my colleague's was raised in rural eastern Kentucky and is a strict "kentucky-arian": meat (chicken, pork, beef ONLY), potatoes, beans, broiled, boiled, fried, or grilled. She admonishes me continuously that not only will I apparently eat anything (I do have some limits), but it's way to hot or spicy. Today, I visited an Ethiopian restaurant for lunch; definitely not on her list. I'll say, up front, that it is not on my list either. Not because it isn't good (it was), but because it was more costly than I like for a lunch.
Everything was different than the expected dining standard. We sat on low, padded stools around a circular basket with a lid. When the food was served, the lid was removed and a large platter of food was placed into a recess. There were no utensils. You ate with your fingers by scooping food into bits of bread. There is no particular way to describe the bread in a manner that is appetizing, so I'll simply state, it was tasty (regardless of the following) description. The bread was kind of like a gray, soft, rubbery, pancake. We ordered a spiced meat dish (small cubes of curried meat with onions), a cabbage roll, and an Ethiopian salad.
The salad had a very light dressing and was otherwise conventional. The cabbage roll was very much like a burrito, but the bread and cabbage combination defeated me. I couldn't figure out how to pick it up without the whole thing disintegrating. There must be a way; again, it was fresh and tasty. The meat dish was delightfully hot (not HOT!). For reference, it was hotter than tabasco. The chilis were either ground or mashed into a paste (no visible chunks) and were likely the African chili known as Piri-piri. Eaten by themselves, they can really set you on fire.
All-in-all, it was a very good lunch and definitely a change of pace. We met the woman who owned the establishment and was the cook. She is just starting out and is actually waiting to move into a larger storefront. I hope she makes it, but doubt she'll attract many from the lunch crowd around the University. She's just around the corner from a Cajun place. All menu items there are $5: etouffee (shrimp, crawfish, and chicken), jambalaya, chicken sauce piquante, po-boys. Hard to beat on a budget.
Everything was different than the expected dining standard. We sat on low, padded stools around a circular basket with a lid. When the food was served, the lid was removed and a large platter of food was placed into a recess. There were no utensils. You ate with your fingers by scooping food into bits of bread. There is no particular way to describe the bread in a manner that is appetizing, so I'll simply state, it was tasty (regardless of the following) description. The bread was kind of like a gray, soft, rubbery, pancake. We ordered a spiced meat dish (small cubes of curried meat with onions), a cabbage roll, and an Ethiopian salad.
The salad had a very light dressing and was otherwise conventional. The cabbage roll was very much like a burrito, but the bread and cabbage combination defeated me. I couldn't figure out how to pick it up without the whole thing disintegrating. There must be a way; again, it was fresh and tasty. The meat dish was delightfully hot (not HOT!). For reference, it was hotter than tabasco. The chilis were either ground or mashed into a paste (no visible chunks) and were likely the African chili known as Piri-piri. Eaten by themselves, they can really set you on fire.
All-in-all, it was a very good lunch and definitely a change of pace. We met the woman who owned the establishment and was the cook. She is just starting out and is actually waiting to move into a larger storefront. I hope she makes it, but doubt she'll attract many from the lunch crowd around the University. She's just around the corner from a Cajun place. All menu items there are $5: etouffee (shrimp, crawfish, and chicken), jambalaya, chicken sauce piquante, po-boys. Hard to beat on a budget.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Aerial Combat
In these middle days of summer, hot dry conditions persist. This weekend, we had late afternoon thundershowers that both cooled things off and brought much needed rain. Of course, rain in the evening often means fog the next morning. This morning was calm so valleys and low spots were obscured by layered mists.
The hummingbirds are now staging an impressive aerial combat show. There are at least 6 and maybe as many as 8. Counting them is not a trivial matter. The birds are constantly in motion: chittering, bashing, humming, zooming through the porch. Some are brave enough to alight on one of the feeders. Some guard the territory from the clothes line, maple, or power line. One would think that with 3 feeders, one pint of nectar and 6 stations per feeder, they would realize that competition is fruitless and wasteful of energy. I know they are starting to get ready for the fall migration; many of our visitors are recent fledglings. But it doesn't seem to matter, their territorial instincts do not recognize the abundance.
The hummingbirds are now staging an impressive aerial combat show. There are at least 6 and maybe as many as 8. Counting them is not a trivial matter. The birds are constantly in motion: chittering, bashing, humming, zooming through the porch. Some are brave enough to alight on one of the feeders. Some guard the territory from the clothes line, maple, or power line. One would think that with 3 feeders, one pint of nectar and 6 stations per feeder, they would realize that competition is fruitless and wasteful of energy. I know they are starting to get ready for the fall migration; many of our visitors are recent fledglings. But it doesn't seem to matter, their territorial instincts do not recognize the abundance.
