The professor, Adam Riess, was actually involved in the discovery of dark energy. His thesis involved getting more accurate measurements for the distance to Type Ia supernovae by correcting for dust. He was a member of one of those groups mentioned in this NY Times article about dark matter, which won the Shaw Prize.

Anyway, here’s the part where they quote my professor:

Nor is there any solid evidence yet that dark energy is or is not varying with time — if it is not constant, it cannot be Einstein’s constant. Adam Riess of the Johns Hopkins space telescope institute, a key member of Dr. Schmidt’s team, said, “The biggest thing we could learn is by ruling that out.”

He added, “We have a suspect, but we’re not ready to convict anyone yet.”

Not a huge quote, but cool, nonetheless.

I was confused before, but now I get it, at least to the extent that a dilettante gets it.

With so many scientists saying that it exists with a good degree of certainty, I’ve decided that I will trust that global warming exists until a good amount of evidence convinces me otherwise.

In my opinion, if you’re a rat and you’re green, you have a genetic abnormality. Maybe that’s not PC, but it’s true.

Then again, with all the intelligence failure going on, how can I trust George Tenet or John E. McLaughlin? How do I know they’re not just trying to cover their asses?

Who do I trust? I find myself wanting to trust neither. At this point, I am struck with skeptic’s paralysis. I can believe neither side and therefore I know nothing. I don’t know what to believe, but I want to believe something. I can’t just ignore the issue, can I?

The answer, however, can be a yes. If you answer yes, then skeptic’s paralysis evolves into a worse disease: apathy. I can know nothing, so I will do nothing.

I find myself mired in the same situation with global warming. (Excuse me, global “climate change.”) Frankly, I don’t know who to believe. I am not fond of Al Gore. I am also not fond of the writer of Jurassic Park who supposedly “debunks” global warming. Supposedly, there is a scientific consensus, but how do I know I can trust those who say there is a consensus any more than I can trust those who say there is still a debate. I hear that there’s more and more evidence, but I have no idea what this evidence is, so I cannot base an opinion based on the concept of evidence.

So, you say, find the evidence. Yet, I’m not a scientist. I can be easily fooled into believing either position. Plus, the advocates of both sides are prone to exaggeration. That only exacerbates my skeptic’s paralysis. I want to trust the scientists, but how can I trust these people to predict the weather years and years into the future when they can’t predict the weather two weeks from now?

Even with that silly problem out of the way, it doesn’t end my skeptic’s paralysis. First, I can’t trust evidence I don’t understand and which can be easily manipulated. There is no way around it: I need to trust an authority. But then, I don’t know which authority to trust. I must rely on another authority to direct me to the proper authorities. How can I trust that person?

I cannot trust anyone, but I want to trust someone.

Luckily, I think my problem can be solved. I trust television, and the Discovery Channel is going to have a special on climate change. I think I will trust that. After all, I trust the MythBusters.

Still looming, though, is the even bigger issue, hinted at in the beginning: I don’t trust know whom to trust in my government.

Despite some doubts I’ve had in the past, after this, I’ve decided that science is definitely not boring.

I’m a little bit late on this Scientific American article, Scientific American: Getting a Leg Up on Land, which came out last December. It talks about new discoveries of how fish evolved into land-dwelling animals. It’s very interesting how they bring different threads of research, like research on genes and research on fossils, to illustrate this evolution. Evolution isn’t rampant speculation; it’s a careful theory. And fish evolving legs completely destroys the “microevolution vs. macroevolution” distinction that creationists like to use.

From The Believer, A Soldier Upon a Hard Campaign. Wither satire. He says the world is so absurd that it does the work of a satirist already. Then, where does that leave one room to write satire? Of course, the article talks about more than that. It’s quite a humorous read, as well.

I just stumbled upon this article, After Neoconservatism from the New York Times. It’s by Francis Fukuyama. I think he’s going to be a speaker in the Foreign Affairs Symposium we’re having at Hopkins. Anyway, by just stumbled upon, I mean I’m only on the second page. His use of the phrase “realistic Wilsonianism” really attracted me, as I had recently mentioned to Lloyd that we need a more “patient Bush Doctrine.” (“If it isn’t oxymoronic,” I didn’t hesitate to add.)

“‘A key question is when this chirality came into play,’ says Uwe Meierhenrich, a chemist at the University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis in France. One theory is that proteins made of both types of amino acids existed on the early Earth but ‘somehow only the proteins of left-handed amino acids survived’, says Meierhenrich.”

A proponent of Intelligent Design may claim that the chirality problem indicates that there must have been an intelligent designer at work. He looks at a problem, throws his hands up in bewilderment, and says, “Magic.” A scientist will look at the problem and try to figure it out. Lo and behold, Space radiation may select amino acids for life. [Note: Quote at the beginning of this entry is from this article.]

Also note: “In 2000, an experiment showed that when circularly polarised ultraviolet light of a particular handedness was shone on an equal mix of right- and left-handed amino acids, it produced an excess of 2.5% by preferentially disintegrating one type.

“But that experiment was done using amino acids in a liquid solution, which behave differently than those in the solid conditions of icy dust in space. To avoid absorption by water molecules, it was also necessary to use light at a wavelength of 210 nanometres – significantly longer than the peak of 120 nm radiation actually measured in space.”

Again the proponent of ID would say, “Ah-hah! Look, you scientists have no idea what you’re doing. Your experiment is significantly different from real world conditions. You are completely defeated. Therefore, there must have been a designer.”

A scientist looks at the data and designs a new experiment, instead of throwing his hands up in defeat. He may be right, he may be wrong, but at least he attempts to find the truth.

“Now, Meierhenrich’s team has performed a similar experiment. The group shone circularly polarised light at a wavelength of 180 nm on a solid film of both right- and left-handed forms of the amino acid leucine. It found that left-handed light produced an excess of 2.6% left-handed amino acids.”

This looks encouraging. Instead of throwing your hands up in defeat and embracing ID, try giving science a chance. Search for the truth. God gave you a brain for a reason.

[P.S. It looks like I've learned from newspaper headlines how to create weblog entry titles. I hope you understand that the title was created to garner attention, while the entry takes a much less aggressive tone. If you leave a comment, address the entry, not the title.]