A geophysicist in the 1970s doing a geophysical survey of the border between Finland and Norway discovered that Finland’s highest elevation point was on a slope directly on the border - and the peak of that mountain was actually just a couple meters across the border in Norway. He then proposed the idea of having Norway agree to give Finland this mountain peak as a present, eventually walking across all of Norway to lobby to give them the mountain and settling on 1917, the 100th anniversary of Finland’s founding as a nation. That would give Finland a new highest point and a new mountain. Once the idea was around, they began having to figure out how to actually go about legally making this plan happen - how do you convince a country to give up a mountain?
folie a deux in particular though
was written as a giant middle finger to the bush administration and this can be seen scattered throughout the album through a specific lense (x). as mentioned in the link i would suggest reading into the wars in afghanistan and iraq and the history that trails back to george w. bush’s father and their politics in the middle east. the album’s references are meant to be subtle and left to interpretation by the listener but many are very blatant like in 20 dollar nosebleed.
let’s not forget you’re crashing but you’re no wave from infinity on high which is about the trial of fred hampton jr. who was falsely accused of arson in a rigged trial in the aftermath of rodney king’s murder in 1993. fred hampton jr. was the son of fred hampton who was the leader of the illinois black panthers and was assassinated in his sleep by chicago pd. pete worked with a volunteer legal organization in chicago during the case and was inspired to write a song that further emphasized him as a black nationalist.
Do you have a particular reason for hating "pop science" as you call it? It seems to me like the act of simplifying these concepts so that the average person can understand them would help more people learn about -and get drawn into- science.
I’m not as militantly opposed to pop science as I used to be. My main issues were with reporting on AI and neuroscience, which I think gives a distorted view of both, but which honestly aren’t especially dangerous. AI in particular is more of a victim of science fiction’s portrayals of it, which is reflected in popular discussions of it.
Pop science can draw people into science itself, but it doesn’t usually give an accurate view of the scientific process. It doesn’t show how political science is, how results are actually arrived at, how scientists can misconstrue their results, or deliberately alter them, to produce conclusions agreeable to them or their sources of funding. This is particularly a problem in social sciences, but the whole problem of cargo cult science exists everywhere. What this does, in my view, is turn scientists into priests, and science into a religion. It doesn’t show how messy science is. It gives scientists an authority I don’t think they deserve.
A lot of my anti-popsci stances were driven by mistrust of scientists as “elite” figures in society. Given how popular discourse has turned against expertise, though, with the election of Donald Trump and the rise of an “anti-science” fringe, I think science is increasingly worth defending. I also think that we have to be sober about what science can and can’t accomplish, which the New Atheist and popsci view doesn’t really keep in mind. I don’t see science as a universal arbiter of truth, but I do think it’s one of the most successful tools we have at getting to the truth, if that makes sense.
“I love fantasy and science fiction, preferably with a female protagonist or strong female characters. I also like books that have diverse characters. I love a good story, and I also like some leanings towards political science/philosophy. I love young adult lit, as well. I love the Harry Potter series and the His Dark Materials series, also Lord of the Rings. Some favorite recently read books include Too Like the Lightening, the Imperial Radch Series (Ancillary Justice, etc.), and The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet.”
Our Bookmatch questions are back! Can you help out our patrons? We’ll
publish all your answers in one master post next week! What are your
book recs, Tumblr?
Being an anarchist in political science classes is fucking great, watching professors do the delicate dance of “tyranny is unjust, but like we need a little bit of it or else the evil lower classes will go mad with power”
Trump on Tuesday asked a prominent anti-vaxxer to lead a commission on vaccine safety.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of Bobby Kennedy, said he agreed
to lead the commission, which will seek to ensure there is “scientific
integrity in the vaccine process for efficacy and safety effects,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy believes vaccines have led to a rise in autism, a claim that’s been debunked by doctors and scientists.
Kennedy told reporters Tuesday that Trump “has some doubts about the current vaccine policies.” Read more
With just three days left in his term Obama is taking steps to safeguard the historic Paris climate agreement — to the tune of $500 million.
On Tuesday, Obama transferred the sum to the Green Climate Fund, a trust created in 2010 to allow wealthy countries to financially assist developing nations in reducing emissions.
The United States has pledged a total of $3 billion to the fund. Combined with an earlier $500 million payment made in March 2016, the U.S. still owes $2B — a debt of which President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to pay none. Read more
In a Fox News interview on Saturday, Trump insisted “nobody really knows” whether climate change
This is contrary to a near-universal consensus by scientists.
When asked to clarify his
position on climate change, Trump responded, “I’m very
open-minded. I’m still open-minded. Nobody really knows. Look, I’m
somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows. It’s not something
that’s so hard and fast.”
Peer-reviewed research into climate change papers and experts consistently find there is a “97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming” among the scientific community. Read more
Researchers expressed concern over the future of climate science.
“With a climate skeptic as President and a creationist as vice-president, scientists can only be worried.” —Albert Descoteaux, a biologist studying host-parasite reactions at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.
“President-elect Donald Trump’s stance on global warming is well known. Science cannot expect any positive climate action from him. The world has now to move forward without the US on the road towards climate-risk mitigation and clean-technology innovation.” —Hans Joachim Schellnuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact in Germany, in a press statement.
“The kind of work we are doing here [at the United Nations’ COP22 climate meeting] today takes a new importance right now. Political events do not and cannot change the reality of climate change.” —Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
And some scientists had more existential worries.
“Unlike the day after the EU referendum vote, when I was bitterly upset, I just feel numb today. I don’t know if that is a kind of despair settling in because despair is precisely the wrong type of reaction to Trump winning the presidential election. Throughout the campaign he showed himself to be a facist and racist, who bragged about his mis-treatment of women. He showed scant regard for truthfulness and espoused denialist views on climate change. It seems unlikely that the scientific and research prowess of the USA will flourish under such a president.” —Stephen Curry, a structural biologist at Imperial College London.
Thousands of researchers and government contractors like me, here in DC, are going to lose our jobs!