Yesterday was kind of depressing, from an electoral standpoint, particularly in California, but there was one bright spot, for those who value science education.

And not just for Barbie. This article says that math problems are getting too big for our brains.

Well, that’s one of the thing that transhumanism is for. This part bothers me, though:

Math has been the only sure form of knowledge since the ancient Greeks, 2,500 years ago.

You can’t prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but you can prove two plus two equals four, always and everywhere.

This begs the definition of the words “knowledge” and “prove.” Two plus two can be proven, I suppose (inductively from one plus one equals two), but only within the confines of the mathematics that you’re using. It’s not “sure” or “knowledge” in any absolute sense.

What they really mean is that some of the tougher mathematical problems are not amenable to classic deductive analytical proofs, but are more reliant on brute-force computations, possible now because we have machines that can perform them in a useful amount of time.

Michael Crichton testified before the Senate last week on the politicization of scientific research.

Michael Crichton testified before the Senate last week on the politicization of scientific research.

Michael Crichton testified before the Senate last week on the politicization of scientific research.

Carl Zimmer has an interesting analogy for those who still don’t understand evolution, and instead prefer to jump from “gap” to “gap.”

An article in this week’s Economist says that hurricanes are getting worse. It doesn’t offer any particular support for the theory that this is a result of global warming, though. And the sample that it shows is only over the last third of a century, so it’s entirely possible (and even likely, if one goes back further for data) that this is a periodic phenomenon, not a secular one. We’re simply heading into a near-term period of increased activity. It’s not a propitious time to own real estate near the Florida coast (as we do).

Apparently, one loses one’s verbal inhibitions as one ages.

If this isn’t valid research, it oughtta be.

Jake Gyllenhaal says that “…every man goes through a period of thinking they’re attracted to another guy.”

That’s the problem with the homosexuality debate. Everyone takes their own sensibilities and projects them onto everyone else. For the record, I’ve never “gone through a period of thinking that I was attracted to another guy,” so here’s where Mr. Gyllenhaal’s theory falls to the ground. Much of the debate over the innateness of sexual attraction occurs among people who are to some degree bisexual (which is why so many think it’s a “choice,” since for them it is, and so they assume it is for everyone). But for me, and pure homosexuals, it is clearly not.

Jay Manifold says we should teach the controversy. Meanwhile, Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne write that we shouldn’t “teach both sides,” because one side is wrong. Well, in terms of science, that’s certainly the case. And here’s an interesting essay by John Poulos, who wonders why many Christians can believe in spontaneous order in the free market, but not in biology:

And what’s true at the personal level is true at the industrial level. Somehow there are enough ball bearings and computer chips in just the right places in factories all over the country.

The natural question… is who designed this marvel of complexity? Which commissar decreed the number of packets of dental floss for each retail outlet?

The answer, of course, is that no economic god designed this system. It emerged and grew by itself, a stunningly obvious example of spontaneously evolving order. No one argues that all the components of the candy bar distribution system must have been put into place at once, or else there would be no Snickers at the corner store…

[Both of the latter links via Geek Press]