Everyone has an opinion more important than yours.

I wonder... If you went to a doctor and he said you had cancer, you would go get a second opinion. As well you should. Even if the second doctor confirmed the diagnosis, you might go to a third. Hey, this is a big deal and you want to make sure that you are getting the right information. After the third doctor gives you the same answer, you would probably resign yourself to the truth of the situation. And, if you bumped into a friend of yours and mentioned your condition and they replied: "Yeah, I'm not convinced you have cancer" you would probably think them a bit of a nutjob. Let's suppose that (morbidly) you carry around an X-Ray or some such that shows your tumor, and you show it to your friend. "No, sorry, still not convinced." At this point, you would probably think them either delusional, in denial, or a moron. Why? Because you have evidence (the X-Ray), and multiple opinions from people who are experts in their fields and have spent a great number of years accumulating knowledge and experience in this area. Your friend (assuming he is not an oncologist) is just some guy who knows next to nothing about cancer (certainly compared to your series of doctors). You would, in fact, consider your friend's opinion to be near meaningless and without worth. You are comparing an opinion with an informed, educated opinion. Yet, somehow, people don't know the difference between the two when it comes to climate change. I was listening to BBC this weekend and there were some scientists (climatologists, environmental scientists, etc.) on discussing global warming. People called in and said that they weren't convinced that global warming was happening, and even less convinced that it was in any way due to humanity's behavior. None of these guys were scientists. None of them mentioned any kind of training in climate study. One or two tossed out a factoid here and there, but at best these were from the Encyclopedia Britannica. 2500 scientists (and, really, far more) are saying that man is causing global warming. And, somehow, these callers felt that they knew more. Someone out there will call my siding with the experts as: a. elitism (you know...anyone who is pro-higher-education must be an elitist) or b. blindly following authority (cause, y'know, listening to your doctor is a bad thing) I listen to my mechanic when I need my car fixed. I listen to my doctor when my back hurts. I listen to the C# programmer on my team when I need C# code written. Why is this any different? Oh, right, it isn't. Its just not much fun, and offends our self-importance. Tags:environment science global warming stupidity

Making Gay Sheep Straight

Scientists Think They May Be Able To Control The Sexuality Of Sheep SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans. The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes. OK, this is disturbing in...1...4...5...7 different ways I am definitely opposed to the idea of genetically manipulating a fetus for various personal preferences (i.e. height, gender, orientation). Not for the various social issues that brings with it (powerful as they may be), but rather the implications for the individual. Seriously. How could you ever know what changes like this might do to a person? And not just physically. What, exactly, are the psychological ramifications of changing a person's gender? Their sexual orientation? You think thalidomide babies were bad? Just wait. (oh, and not for nothing, but if I hear one 'Intelligent Designer' or 'Creationist' come out in favor of this, I'm getting a gun) Tags:sexuality science sheep

Circumcision and STDs

Male Circumcision Appears To Help Prevent Catching STDs The current study is just one of many that have looked at this controversial topic. While most research has found that circumcision reduces the rates of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), syphilis and genital ulcers, the results are more mixed for other STDs. The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision. I wish they gave examples of how this is 'complex and conflicting'. I'm assuming that there's evidence that says that it specifically DOESN'T help prevent HIV etc. If not, if its just that it doesn't work for all STDs, well, aren't we setting the bar a tad high? Tags:circumcision AIDS HIV STDs