This won't be here for long...

I felt the desire to actually tackle a "truth or Opinion" exercise. It seems that Leticia seems to think she is always CLEARLY identifying her opinions as such, and her facts are always soundly supported, while your dear professor constantly asserts opinion as fact... So let's start some textual analysis of our own, shall we? Straight from what has been the posting with perhaps one of the longest comment streams...

Leticia Writes:

Gay Policy Biting The Pentagon on The Butt

I suppose the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy works to an extent, but once someone is outed and the military releases them it certainly calls into question ["certainly" a dogmatic statement, if not one asserting FACT] the rational for the policy, especially when we are at war. We are going through military left and right, either due to death, incapacitation or exhaustion. ["going through the military left and right" seems to assert this as fact. Just how many soldiers does it take to be going through them? Hmmm? Reads like fact--but is of course, OPINION] Recruitment is down and will probably stay low. [Assertion of FACT, but actually again opinion, or at least poorly researched. As Brother_Bones posted on the comments, most services are not having problems recruiting.] Safe to say that policy on gays in the military starts to sound a bit stupid all of a sudden, don't it? [Sounding stupid--clearly opinion... right? No matter how "safe" she thinks it is to say]

Also, I never quite understood what the difference was between horny homosexuals chasing after each other, and horny heterosexuals chasing after the opposite sex in the military. The military is aware we are now co-ed? One of the best Iraq stories I heard was from a friend in the Army who in between casing empty homes in the area he was designated to cover, found time for some one-on-one with another female soldier right behind a huge cement wall in the Iraqi heat. Of course, the military will probably look at that and think it's fabulous. [Anecdote--so perhaps factual, but certainly not sufficient data to form a valid opinion] (Maybe "fabulous" is the wrong word.) But the point is, if they are concerned about inappropriate behavior , does it really matter which two sexes are involved?


So what we have here, despite the protestations, and constant obfuscations from the perveyors of smoke, is a blog full of opinions asserted as fact, anecdotes put forward as arcetype, and *I didn't write it!* (now THAT is Fabulous!)

Alito ain't all that bad--if you are a leftist, eh?

Okay, now I remember reading in (and commenting on) another blog (perhaps you remember me mentioning it here, The Lobby?) that by confirming Alito "We might as well have put the Religious Right and the head of every corporation up on that court."

Well, it appears that, at least in his first step, he got off on the left foot. I suppose he won't ALWAYS be a lap dog for the conservatives. But then again, I don't remember a justice whoever did everything that was expected of them, fufilling some sort of litmus test, except, perhaps, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But then again, it isn't a litmus test if it is from the left, now is it?

Later, class.

US Airman shot--in LA!

After reading the story about a sheriff shooting a USAF airman I can't help but wonder if the anti-military, anti-government rhetoric of the radical, radio left, has had a deliterious effect on how the US Military is received-at home. Perhaps the Randi Rhodes Show, Morning Sedition, and the rest of that ilk, have succeeded not at getting us out of Iraq, but at getting the US citizens to start shooting at our military, when they are at home, and on leave.

Oh, yes, I understand that there was a 100 mph chase. But the airman was a passenger in the car--not the driver. And I believe there is no excuse for shooting anyone, especially not a military member, when they are following the directions they are given.

Randi Rhodes, and the rest of the radical radio left should be ashamed of themselves.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, these are my opinions. But of course, they are as valid as asserting that George Bush is guilty of negligent homicide by not stopping the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Right?

Panel: Teflon Chemical a Likely Carcinogen

This story, "Panel: Teflon Chemical a Likely Carcinogen," is another of those interesting scientific findings that will get lots of "air play" and then die down. It is research that will most likely scare many, who will fail to read the full story, and never go read the actual report. What is the likelihood that anyone will actually contract cancer from teflon, or any other 'non-stick' surface? I suspect (NOTE: Opinion through observation) that since the incidence of cancer hasn't increased since the introduction of teflon, and the projected life-spans have increased, we have seen little practical impact.

This reminds me of the studies that came out in the mid-1980s, where a "link" was found between aluminum in the brain, and Alzheimer's. At the time, the "fear mongers" then started encouraging the disuse of Aluminum Pans (oddly enough, in favor or cast iron, and teflon) and discouraged drinking sodas out of a can. (forget that sodas themselves are evil, evil things.) At the time, I pointed out, to those around me, young pup that I was, that the evidence was only that there existed a link--high levels of aluminum in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.

Note a few things here:
- They had only looked at autopsies of Alzheimer patients, so couldn't draw a solid comparison
- They (The researchers) found high levels of alumnimum

I surmised that it could be one of two (or many) things. The two most obvious is that a) Aluminum causes/contributes to Alzheimer's, or b) whatever the cause of Alzheimer's, it may, as a result, *also* result in the brain retaining significant levels of aluminum. (Of course, there was the next option--that the levels were high, but no higher than in anyone else... )

I believe later studies have shown that there is no causal link. I leave that research to you, dear reader. But if you find anything, be sure to come back here and tell us--certainly a motivated reader makes the best researcher! (In fact, that's one of the things I like most about the blog at "the Lobby"--Let is quite motivated!)

Keep on thinking!

The Prof

WSJ.com - Science Journal

WSJ.com - Science Journal

Many of you may remember my writing about Science and assumptions This article does a good job of talking about the assumptions that Science makes--and often must make. As the article points out "'What science is is settled methodologically,' says Prof. Forrest. 'It's not that science rules out the supernatural as a precondition. But scientists want to apprehend the world, and there is no procedure for studying the supernatural. God is not a controlled variable.'"

Yup--they can't have as assumption that God did it. But as the article points out, science gets in trouble when it argues that one must choose between God and Scientific truth. As this article points out, nothing could be further from the truth.

Oh--and if the link has disappeared, let me know.

Apple Offers College Lectures Via Podcasts - Yahoo! News

Apple Offers College Lectures Via Podcasts - Yahoo! News

This is very interesting--Apple supporting the podcasting of lectures. Forget for a brief moment that removing the students from the classroom removes the interactivity between the prof and the class, and between each other, that often leads to serendipitous learning. Additionally, ignore for the moment that this might result in the prof actually talking to a COMPLETELY empty room (and how motivated a speaker can you be with that?).

Ignoring all that, this might be a very neat idea. Several years ago, MIT started the open university project (or whatever they called it) making the materials for their classes available online. Their logic? The course materials are not the reason MIT is so good. MIT is an outstanding university because of the interactions, and the faculty. This goes that next step, and brings the faculty--at least in a one way transmission--to the viewer/listener. (MIT, to its credit, will still have an edge, since so much of their educational experience is hands-on learning.) Perhaps this is another way of extending the distance education approach, that started with mail-order classes, has recently moved to the web-based courses, and now, is supported by your little iPod.

I am curious about this, though. Do you, dear class, believe that students today are, as the story says, "digital natives"? Are they so wired in, that this is not only a good way to reach them, but perhaps, the ONLY way to reach them?

What do you think the net effect on the education of these students will be? Will they be better educated, since they can learn where and when they want, or perhaps lose out because of the lack of interaction?

Let me know!

The Prof

(Oh, and visit The Lobby--for all my wranglings with that site, I do believe it is a fun site to read, and honestly, worth anyone's time!)

It's funny...

I was trying to decide what to post about today. Alito? Done... Kennedy's blustering about how long he was willing to fight to subpeona the Library of Congress to release Alito's records about Princeton (they voluntarily offered them--once asked...)

But then, I realized, I have some unfinished business. I had engaged in a brief discussion about gays in the military at the Lobby. It's not really a fight--certainly not one about dogma, or philosopy. Honestly, I think the main author, Let, just is perhaps not as familiar with the military as one needs to be to make some statements.

But I have engaged. Please, dear readers, especially those with a military background--go read the discussion and, if you feel like contributing, do so.

I am sure the hosts at the Lobby welcome thoughtful people from all backgrounds, and would never do anything to discourage participation. And, while, as the lead author points out, opinions are like... (I am assuming she included her's in that rather broad generalization) I know she welcomes factual discussions.

The Prof