As for there being “strongly peer reviewed publications”, some are certainly more strongly reviewed than others. In my experience, there is a high variance in the level of scrutiny within a given publication. Typically, there are 3-5 reviewers ranging from those who fly through the review in 10 minutes and others who spend a day or more reviewing the paper in depth. So it often seems very hit-or-miss on the integrity of the process.

I think there is truth to that. I also think its very easy to get information out (thanks to the internet) so you need to be very careful of the source. There are still strongly peer reviewed publications but they are not the only voices anymore.

Another “problem” is the desire to protect IP. I expect that if you make major breakthroughs with Jacket, you will not publish that code. That doesn’t mean your results are not true, just that you want to protect your IP. Of course, claims such as these must be taken with a significant grain of salt, though they could be just as accurate.

I do agree with your apprehension of “consensus science,” though. Moreover, I think there are popular areas of scientific research that are beneficial to ones career to pursue. Researchers, even those in academic institutions, are capitalists. They compete for research funding. I think this is a good thing but one of the byproducts seems to be the certain topics become “hot” and thus people flock to that area and often support a specific thesis in order to help their careers and chances of receiving funding. I think you see examples of that in the subjects you innumerated in your post.

Interesting topic of discussion, though. Notice I present no solutions. Just be skeptical of everything, even if some claims: According to scientists…

Take gay marriage. If it were up to me, I’d legalize it nationally. The amount of people who’d become instantly much happier (~10%) would be significant, and the amount of people who would view their lives as ‘immediately worse’ would be rather low (in most polls, even in more conservative states, when asked “If gay marriage was legalized, would your life be made any worse?” the vast majority say no. Only 1-5% ever says yes). Considering the majority of states are now supporting gay marriage in addition to this, it seems a logical action with a small unhappiness cost. Sure, that 1-5% I parenthetically referenced earlier might be SUPER vocal, but whatever. Having a loud voice does not mean you command a large population. Take Emma Goldman after the McKinley assassination. Her semi-sort-of-but-not-really association with Leon Czolgosz escalated her to the national scale and made her very vocal, but were there REALLY that many anarchists in America? No, but she made you think there were. This eventually ended up in the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903 (Teddy Roosevelt’s one big mistake, in my opinion), which allowed for you to be questioned on your political opinions when coming into the country (and denied if you were an Anarchist). This was amended by the Immigration Act of 1918 though, so it is no longer in-place. However, do you see what I am talking about?

A moral decline? I don’t see that, really. I mean, there’s more sex I guess…? I mean, the words “moral decline” have been tossed around a lot lately. I honestly think that’s because it’s election season more than anything else. Let’s see how often they’re used after November – it’s like the Mosque thing. Everyone with a brain expects that ‘controversial’ topic to go away after the elections.

As to what “moral decline” means? I’m not sure I follow, entirely. I assume by “country” you mean us as a nation, rather than the state. In this situation it is common knowledge (take any intro Sociology course) that societies have a natural tendency to move left. This is because more and more people are continually aiming for acceptance into the national identity. Right now it is LGBT rights, before it was women’s rights, and before that was African American rights. In other countries (ala, Japan), there were pushes for the Burakumin to be legally equal, pushes for Korean repatriotization for the unpatriotized Korean descendants (long story), and a bunch of others. This same thing happens everywhere. It might be scary for you, but it is natural. It is only in an extreme government where that can be stopped or halted. This was actually the point of the Islamic Revolution that formed the Islamic Republic (watch Persepolis, you’ll learn a lot). The fact of the matter is, the “tea party” side of the fence isn’t nearly extreme enough to stop the progress from happening – it will only delay it slightly. In terms of actual moral values though, I see nothing inherently wrong with the direction our country is moving in. Well… Okay, there’s the fact that we still have millionaires and billionaires when, frankly, no one should be seriously pulling down more than 200k a year (after taxes, to be fair). The fact that that’s socially acceptable is deplorable to me. Take the 60′s. Back then there were marches because CEO’s were making 50 times the average salary of a lower worker. Now the average is literally 50000 times for larger companies and no one lifts a finger to help the people who need it most, instead focusing on politics or whichever pundit makes them feel good on the television.

If you are talking about the state? Honestly, Barack Obama is like a less effective Teddy Roosevelt. He panders to the far right more than Roosevelt and has gotten a lot less done, but their basic philosophies are the same. People whined then too, by the way. Saying America was “turning communist” and that this was “the end of our country.” Instead, what we got were national highways, libraries, minimum wages for workers, laws regarding overtime, regulations for food and drugs, and the ability to form responsible unions. Posterity has remembered Roosevelt well for his actions, though he was hated by a vocal minority back during his presidency. I predict Obama will be remembered for his Health Care Legislation in that it removed pre-existing condition requirements. I believe he’ll be remembered for his legislation requiring sexual orientation to be added to the national hate crimes list. People cried communism and were “deficit hawks” during Roosevelt, but does ANYONE remember that? Only people like me who pour through old newspaper articles in their free time. So, in short, I see nothing ‘morally corrupt’ with the state. You may disagree with it, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find anything ‘evil.’

Now, let me ask you: What do you find morally corrupt in our country? Here’s something to think about first. Morals aren’t defined by religion. That’s one of the first things you learn in an intro Philosophy course in even the most decrepit community college. Morals are defined by logical underpinnings that aim towards optimal happiness at low cost to universal happiness. Imagine it this way. Tom, Mindy, and Sandy all want a cookie. Now, if you were to hand Tom the entire cookie, he would be excessively happy at a level of, say, 5. Mindy and Sandy, however, would be sad at a value of, say, -3. So the overall happiness would be -1. Now, let’s say we give 1/3 of the cookie to each member. They are each less happy than if they got the full cookie, but none of them is openly unhappy. Therefore, we can assume each would be at a value of about 2-3 each. So the range of comparison would be -1 as compared to 6-9. Obviously, sharing is more morally acceptable than not sharing. It is advantageous in a society, logically, to promote as much happiness as you can at as little individual happiness cost, as that maximizes each person’s individual happiness values and therefore the odds of you receiving the best you can. Basically, you want to play with the best odds you can get. Therefore, a moral action is one that achieves this goal.

Now, you can live by additional religious rules if you like. That’s fine. But those are rules (or ‘core values’ of the religion) rather than morals. With this in mind, do you have any issues that are actually MORALLY ‘wrong’ or are your arguments strictly from a religious standpoint? If they are, then might I ask – how is your trying to change things to fit your particular group any different than forcing your rules, and thus your religion, down our throats? And is it so difficult to believe that the rules you live your life by might not be perfect for everyone? Are you vain enough to believe them to be a one-size-fits-all for the entire country?

* This particular rally had nothing to do with protesting against Obama’s policies. I’ve been to other Tea Party rallies where Obama’s policies were actively protested, but this was unlike any of those. Insofar as Obama seeks to denigrate the place of Faith, Hope, and Charity in our public life, this rally was meant to reverse those trends, but only indirectly. Obama was not mentioned once in the 3 hour event.

* The great thing about the rally was that no one there was running for anything or attempting to get me to vote for anything. Everything was about getting individuals recommitted to becoming a better person, individually. Certainly, those who organized the event stand to benefit from its success, so that could be construed as empowering those individuals. In my opinion, better to empower them than those who seek to destroy Faith, Hope, and Charity from public life.

* Not sure what Bush has to do with any of this. My opinion of Bush has not changed since ~2004. I think Bush did wonderfully well on many moral issues, unlike the enormous moral betrayal of his predecessor. He spent too much money. He made some mistakes in war. I’m not going to address those two issues here, as they are bigger beasts than I care to tackle.

I don’t know much about the individual columnists in the various media outlets, but I do know that many tend to keep around token opposite views to appear more balanced than otherwise. Here in Atlanta, the AJC recently was searching to add a token conservative columnist.

Certainly, the spin Ross gave the event was more positive than I would have expected from those pages. Most opposing viewpoints were trying to spin it this way: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/29/what-theyre-saying-about-the-828-rally/

Who Lincoln was channelling were the people before them. The colonial pilgrims, particularly in the North East.

I kinda wish David Derickson was here to tell us more about Lincoln’s beliefs =P. The fact of the matter is that, that quote was taken out of context. Lincoln was using that to unify the country more by saying that the bible gives slavery no sanction and in doing so make a religious argument against the foundation the south was fighting on. Religion is a potent political tool.

It’s fine to argue for making America more Christian. It’s fine to argue that we are a ‘Christian nation’ and that our government ‘needs more religion,’ but don’t you DARE do that under the guise of patriotism or some sort of pro-American sentiment. Even the super-Christians pilgrims Lincoln was channelling were adamantly against religion in Government. Roger Williams, one of the most religious men you’d ever meet (he was what they called a ‘visible saint’ back in the day and refused to pray with anyone else unless they were also ‘visible saints’).

“First the faithful labors of many Witnesses of Jesus Christ, extant to the world, abundantly proving, that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type, and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the Antitype, were both separate from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, and made his Garden a Wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if he will ever please to restore his Garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the Wilderness of the world, and added unto His Church or Garden.”
—Roger Williams “Mr. Cottons Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered,” (1644).

There is NO patriotism in bringing religion to politics. It is one of the core foundations of our country to keep them mutually exclusive. Whether you believe it is better for religion’s sake (ala Roger William’s) or better for Government’s sake (ala Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Williams [sort of] and the list goes on and on).