Debated on sharing this, but there is a broader part of the story that seems worth considering.
We took pretty careful precautions all along until one thing recently. We did not become hermits but we kept our distance and did all the little stuff, with no bars, no restaurants,
no groups, no close face-to-face even with masks. There were family connections that were potential problems but everyone involved was being careful themselves. And considering ourselves in a somewhat elevated risk category (for one thing I’m 61), we had the kids (12 and 5)
do online school until the beginning of November.
But the schooling wasn’t working. It’s no one’s fault - the teachers tried really hard, my wife tried really hard, the kids were themselves with their own special abilities and needs, but they were understanding and tried.
But it wasn’t working.
So we sat down and decided to take a risk. It was a hard decision.
Now I don’t know for certain that the kids going to school is what got us here. We will never know. There are some things that fit and there is a lack of cases along other possibilities,
but it seems most likely.
Schools are important. I surely understand, more than ever, the need to have in-person schools open, for many reasons. But if Covid is rampant in the community then schools and essential businesses and fully unavoidable contacts are going to serve
as vectors to get the virus to vulnerable people, no matter how careful they are otherwise. I have an ancient tweet saying this from the spring (before I got to the arguing-covid-online-with-idiots-costs-me-brain-cells epiphany). So I told you so.
Thanks to all with their well wishes. So far we seem somewhere in the middle range if cases.
Just don’t tell me to smile and keep a positive attitude or that you know I will be ok because I’m a fighter, because I will personally come and kick you ass.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On voter fraud, pseudoscience, and haunted houses.
A huge number of people very firmly believe that Biden is stealing the election and that there has been massive voter fraud. You may not see it if you don’t visit the darker areas of social media, but it’s astounding.
(picture credit Susanna Duncombe, 1725-1812)
I see it in relatives and people I know who I thought had more sense. We should try to understand why, what an argument with them is like, and, with Thanksgiving coming, what to do.
So it is time to talk again about haunted houses. (I do this on the first day with new grad students, right beside Popper and Kuhn. I did not invent this analogy and I can’t find where I first read it, perhaps Carl Sagan? Let me know if you know the original source.)
A sad story, then some possibly timely lessons for young scientists.
A long time ago now, I caught that a student had faked data. This was in the late stages of manuscript preparation, with a draft in hand, and I caught it on a Tuesday.
It was undeniable, but still the student initially tried to deny it. (A key data analysis process we use allows the exact reproduction of numerical results. I strongly recommend this when possible. I caught that some numbers had been changed by exactly 10.00 or exactly 15.00.)
After the denial wore out, my demand was for a report giving our true reliable data. I got that report about 5 AM on Wednesday morning. By Wednesday at noon I had figured out, based on some hidden electronic signatures, that the report contained a new fabrication.
M: Atoms have nuclei and electrons. We worry about where the nuclei are, because the electrons just sort of follow them around.
G: Got it. This is easy.
M: We are made up of molecules. Molecules are groups of atoms connected in a specific way.
G: Like a group of friends.
M: More like a patchwork quilt. The pieces are the nuclei and the stitching is the electrons.
G. But you said not to worry about the electrons.
M: Well, the electrons can follow around more than one nuclei, holding groups together.
G: Like Friends.
Order, chaos, bah. This is chemistry, in fact it is my entropy and free energy lecture. We teach both so badly that most chemists, for God’s sake, understand neither. I use analogies like this, or a simple marble shaker, to show the ideas. Let’s go.
The shaking rate is important, let’s name it T.
The average height of the mass of the nails seems important, let’s give it a name, I dunno, H. The H started high and went lower, but with greater T or lighter nails or less gravity it could have gone up.
But something a little more subtle is also important, and that is the number of ways the nails can be arranged. A low H limits the positions for the nails, so there are fewer ways they can be arranged. At a high H there are more. Let’s call the number of ways, maybe, omega.
Ok, so I have now gone through two MOOC courses on climate change, the older David Archer Coursera course and Michael Mann edX course, and I have some recommendations for my fellow non-climate scientists.
First, absolutely do take a course. Yea, I know, our own areas of science are enough of a struggle, and we are each unlikely to become climate activists. This is, however, the preeminent scientific moral issue of our time, and it is not going away in your lifetime.
Your training lets you understand the physics, the evidence, and the uncertainties at a level that most can't. That gives you the responsibility to apply your abilities to every climate news story and every dumb internet or Thanksgiving table argument, even if only for yourself.
Interesting thread/comments, but I think it misses something important. It is of course true that science criticisms should be professional and not cruel.
But the very worst, most devastating criticism is the one that no one tells you about.
At a long prior version of the GRC I’m at now, I recall sitting in the rental car of an old friend and famous chemist, drinking beer, while he alternately expressed his pain and sadness and the hurtful effects of his NIH grant being turned down. This was not because of any flaw
in the science - that was indisputably terrific - but because of the criticism that he was not giving enough credit and referencing to a previous researcher. I had been on that Study Section. The criticism had been floating around but “kind” and shy people had not told my friend