Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Dear Canadian Blog Awards: I'm going to enjoy this.


Oh, the cognitive dissonance of the Sci/Tech category having three of Denyse O'Leary's blogs. Does the fact that that amuses me make me a bad person?

Yes, yes, it does.

AFTERSNERK: For those of you who are new around these parts, here's an example of Denyse O'Leary's razor-sharp intellectual abilities, as she favourably quotes one David Tyler:

Author Tim Folger elevates the principle to "an extraordinary fact" about the universe: "Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and - in this universe, anyway - life as we know it would not exist."

Folger's article is based on an interview with physicist Andrei Linde, who says: "We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible." Many of these are sketched out for the benefit of readers, and Folger comments: "There are many such examples of the universe's life-friendly properties - so many, in fact, that physicists can't dismiss them all as mere accidents."

Quite so, because nothing says "life-friendly" like a universe which consists primarily of vast nothingness in which human beings would die instantly and horribly. Other than that, the universe is apparently a terrifically friendly place.

I can't wait to see how that category shakes out. Really.

BONUS TRACK: Those scientifically-literate Yankees, making fun of us again. I'm sure it's what they live for.

11 comments:

The Seer said...

WV: venergic

sounds impure

OT You Canadians do not know how lucky you are to have a healthy BT aggregator. In the US, the right blogosphere is in trouble. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112403004.html

Romantic Heretic said...

"Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life."

WTF?

Does this dipshit have any idea just how rare life actually is in this universe?

Small minds, small minds.

Jason said...

Besides life being rare in the cosmos,

these are exactly the measures we would expect from a naturalistic cosmos that we inhabit.

A thought experiment: If one of these values were far from predicted and we were miraculously living in a universe where radiation levels should be too high/atoms shouldn't form/proteins would break up instantly, Denyse O'Leary and her ilk would shouting at the top of their lungs that this proves the existence of God (their favorite God, of course).

However, because we have found the exact opposite, Denise O'Leary and her ilk are shouting at the top of their lungs that this proves the existence of God (their favorite God, of course).

Falsifiability: Denise, you're doing it wrong.

Anarchore said...

Look up the cosmological constant, if that # is tweaked then the universe wouldn't work the way it does. Of course if it was wrong then the universe wouldn't be able to generate intelligent life that could ask that question, which leads to a debate about alternate universes, of which one out of an infinite multiverse will be 'just right' for curiousity to evolve.

Ti-Guy said...

How dare those awful Americans mock us so? After we've gone out of our way to show them how to set up universal health care and stop their gays from living in sin?

Ingrates.

M@ said...

PZ is right, to an extent. Recursivity and Sandwalk are required reading among Canadian science blogs. But the problem is no one nominated them.

Best case scenario, some prominent people in each field should be asked for lists of their favourite blogs, to help fill out the categories.

The fundamental problem with the entire CBA system is that it depends on the lowest common denominator deciding which blogs are nominated, which is how you get Denyse's many blogs nominated as science blogs, and people like SUZANNE and Joanne nominated (in previous years) as feminist blogs.

It would make more sense to have a panel look at every list of nominees, using clear criteria spelled out in advance, and let that panel select the five finalists. As it is, I fully expect all of Denyse's blogs to make the final cut, and one of them to win. Maybe the shame of that will compel the CBA folks to run a decent awards program next year.

The Seer said...

Guys! Scientists have started backing off Global Warming because of Global Cooling. No shit! Wait til the Canadian blogosphere finds out about this:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015816.php

liberal supporter said...

Isn't the cosmological constant basically a fudge factor to make the other equations fit? The only design it demonstrates is the design of the equations.

If I put a turkey on a scale and balance it with some weights does that balance somehow prove God did it? If the weights were different or the turkey still had its head, the scale would tip over. Therefore it cannot be coincidence?

Naturally the devil is in the thumb on the scales.

Ti-Guy said...

As it is, I fully expect all of Denyse's blogs to make the final cut,

I just voted for one of them.

Go Denyse!

Nuclear Moose said...

If you don't like Denyse's blogs, then why link to them? You're just sending traffic that way and giving those sites higher "credibility" due to the increased traffic.

Beijing York said...

Well I nominated by friend's blog:

http://serendipityoucity.blogsome.com/

Her little space in the cyber world provides lots of information, links and insights on tech issues, geo-mapping and melding science/tech with social responsibility. I highly recommend you vote for her.