Science is depressing

MidnightCoder · Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:43 am


	Interbane wrote: Media bias makes it seem like things are worse than they are.

Good post, but you lost me here. I think the situation is just the opposite. Take rape for example, since it's so often in the mainstream media. One can argue that a rape is against a single individual (usually), and the media blows this out of proportion with extensive coverage. Then you hear about the statistics of how many rapes are never reported. Then you consider that only a very small number of the ones that are reported make it into the media... The reality of that situation is that the media focusing so heavily on a small selection of cases gives the impression of less cases than there are, or at least less than one would expect.

This applies to other areas too. Take war casualties. Mainstream US media makes such a huge deal when a (relative) few US troops get killed, but there's war going on in many many countries that are simply never reported by those media corps. Again, this creates the illusion of less violence and killing going on than there actually is. Perhaps they just don't count, since they're not American. US and them.

I'd go so far as to say the majority of the population of these two countries really has no idea what's going on in the rest of the world, or at least has great gaping holes in that knowledge.

bleachededen · Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:17 am

I generally just assume the worst of everything and react accordingly (meaning, I continue to live my life regardless). Yes, sometimes I get choked up over one atrocity or another, and it's not like I laugh when bad things happen, I just accept that they are happening because that is the state of the world, and if there's nothing I can do about it, it doesn't help the world or my life to sit around crying about it. I've spent way too much time doing just that and I don't want to do it anymore.

Interbane · Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:47 am


	Quote: One can argue that a rape is against a single individual (usually), and the media blows this out of proportion with extensive coverage. Then you hear about the statistics of how many rapes are never reported. Then you consider that only a very small number of the ones that are reported make it into the media... The reality of that situation is that the media focusing so heavily on a small selection of cases gives the impression of less cases than there are, or at least less than one would expect.

You may be right, everyone is different. I would say that by the time you start thinking about how the media affects your perception of it, you already have a leg up on the majority of people. I know a few people who refrain from watching the news because they think there is only negative crap being aired. Kipper seems affected in much the same way. Without using your brain, all you notice is the volume of negative news. Sorry if that sounded insulting Kipper, it wasn't meant to be. I don't use my brain when it comes to many things. There's too much information in this world clamoring for my attention.

caseyjo · Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:58 pm

As a scientist, I feel that I should, first and foremost, stand up for science. If you haven't already, you might want to take a look through Richard Dawkins' book, "Unweaving the Rainbow," in which he discusses why science is something beautiful, not to be feared but to be embraced. I cannot speak as eloquently as Professor Dawkins, but I would like to take his lead in explaining why science does not take the joy out of the world.


	KipperSnacks wrote: Any minute the world could come to an end. Any minute a meteorite could smash into the earth with the destructive power of a hammer to a babies head. Any minute the ocean could eat your city. Any minute a super volcano could fill the air with poison ash. Is is just me or is earth science depressing. I wish I could go back to being a kid when I didn't know the sun could burp and kill us all. All I ever hear any more is that we're all tippy toeing around in a Dragons den. Every show and article I read is about the end of the freaking world. The worst part is they're right, and there is no cure. It's like your doctor telling you your very sick then walking out of the room. The more we learn about the Earth and the universe the more it becomes clear that each day could end in a major bummer.

Science can tell us that each of these contingencies is theoretically possible, true. However, understanding these events means understanding the processes that bring about natural disasters. Before humans began to explore earth science, volcanos and tsunamis occurred suddenly, with no warning. Research has allowed geologists to identify when a volcano may be about to erupt, or when a tsunami is likely to occur. A friend of mine got a text message earlier this month, warning her that the earthquake in Chile could create tsunami conditions in Southern California. Without research into why tsunamis occur, this would not be possible.

Furthermore, statistics and probability allow us to understand how extremely unlikely each of these events are. Sure, I could spend my time worrying that a meteorite might fall from the sky and hit me while I'm walking down the street. It would be better, though, for me to calculate a probability based on the population of the world (6,692,030,277, according to google) and the number of times someone might be hit by a meteorite daily. I can't find good stats on this second factor, but let's just pretend that the number is 4 people hit by a meteor everyday (this seems a bit high to me, but I'm going to roll with it). Probability is always the number of times an event occurs divided by the total number of possible times it could have occurred. Thus, the probability, on any given day, of getting hit by a meteorite would be .000000000597725927, which is infinitesimally small. Since people aren't outside at all points of the day, the probability of getting hit on an hour long walk would be (4/24)/6,692,030,277, or .000000000024905247, which is even smaller.

Alright, this next bit is going to get a bit mathy, so if you dislike math, I apologize in advance. We've estimated that about 4 people in the entire world are hit with a meteorite daily, but what about a catastrophic event that causes 100 people to be hit by meteorites in one hour? Since we have a large population and we know the likelihood of the event within a certain timeframe, we can estimate how likely an extreme event would be using the poisson distribution. Since there are 24 hours in a day, and we expect 4 people to be hit by a meteorite daily, the number of expected meteorite strikes hourly would be 4/24. The probability that we would see 100 events when 4/24 are expected is given by the equation ƒ(100;4/24)=(((4/24)^100)*e^-4/24)/100!, which equals 1.3883178 × 10^-236. This doesn't make me too terrified to step outside!

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: One can argue that a rape is against a single individual (usually), and the media blows this out of proportion with extensive coverage. Then you hear about the statistics of how many rapes are never reported. Then you consider that only a very small number of the ones that are reported make it into the media... The reality of that situation is that the media focusing so heavily on a small selection of cases gives the impression of less cases than there are, or at least less than one would expect.

You may be right, everyone is different. I would say that by the time you start thinking about how the media affects your perception of it, you already have a leg up on the majority of people. I know a few people who refrain from watching the news because they think there is only negative crap being aired. Kipper seems affected in much the same way. Without using your brain, all you notice is the volume of negative news. Sorry if that sounded insulting Kipper, it wasn't meant to be. I don't use my brain when it comes to many things. There's too much information in this world clamoring for my attention.

One thing to keep in mind when looking at the media in general is the availability heuristic. People are not innately good statisticians, we tend to assume things are more common if we can come up with an example. The media provides many examples of relatively rare events, which then seem to be more likely. I agree, by thinking about how the media affects you, you're a step ahead of the game.

Interbane · Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:47 pm

I always like to joke that I wouldn't be surprised if my best friend from the other side of the country suddenly fell from the air in front of me while I was driving down the road.

There was an interesting article a while back, either from Skeptic or Rationally Speaking. Or perhaps somewhere else, I can't find it. Anyways, an audience was asked to raise their hands if they'd ever experienced a one in a million coincidence. Half the room raised their hands, with most of them being over 30 years old. Then they were asked to raise their hands if they'd ever experienced a one in a billion coincidence. Less people raised their hands, but the interesting thing was that they were older people, 50 or more years old. The conclusion you can draw from this more or less jumps out at you. Fun, huh?

More on the topic, with a fun cartoon!!!: http://pass.maths.org.uk/issue4/grimmett/

If there's anything you need to worry about, you won't see it coming anyways. Stress kills. Therefore, the only thing you need to worry about is worry itself.

caseyjo · Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:07 pm


	Interbane wrote: There was an interesting article a while back, either from Skeptic or Rationally Speaking. Or perhaps somewhere else, I can't find it. Anyways, an audience was asked to raise their hands if they'd ever experienced a one in a million coincidence. Half the room raised their hands, with most of them being over 30 years old. Then they were asked to raise their hands if they'd ever experienced a one in a billion coincidence. Less people raised their hands, but the interesting thing was that they were older people, 50 or more years old. The conclusion you can draw from this more or less jumps out at you. Fun, huh?

That's pretty interesting, I hadn't heard that before. Of course, the psychologist in me wonders if the people who raise their hands actually HAD experienced a one in a million coincidence. We do tend to think that our own experiences are more unlikely and unusual than they actually are.

I've heard (I believe it was in the book "The Canon"), that people are likely to experience one extremely unlikely coincidence per month. That could be finding yourself in the same train car as someone you went to high school with (assuming you now live far away from your high school), or having you friend John call to say hi right after you say "I wish John would call me" or something similar. Of course, this is any unlikely occurrence, not a specific unlikely event. Stats are funny that way.

I like this bit in the linked article, which illustrates the point quite nicely:


	Quote: Think of it this way. There is a great number of events which could possibly occur (N, say) and which might deserve the title "coincidence". Each of these may have a very small probability of occurring in any given week (p, say). Now N is large, and p is small, but the average number of occurrences (i.e., the product Np) may be of reasonable size. It follows "by the laws of chance" that coincidences will definitely occur sooner or later. Indeed, the world would be more surprising if coincidences never occurred.

Another cool thing to think about is how large the population is. This means that specific unlikely events occur in large numbers, even though they have low relative frequency. That's why there are thousands of lottery jackpot winners, and tons of stories about people making a killing in Vegas, but the odds of that happening to you are still pretty small.

KipperSnacks · Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:35 pm


	Interbane wrote: But what makes you think good people can't break a moral code? Would that mean they are no longer good? If someone in your close family were to break a moral code, would you immediately reject them as the enemy? I don't think you would. Neither would I. Neither would the family members of most of the criminals in our society.

This I like. That is the question where is the line between good and bad? Who should decide the fates of those deemed bad? Is anyone people or organization capable of make fair decisions when it comes to some one else's fate? Like you said there are innocent people locked up and rapist in the streets, does that leave only the individual to police their actions fairly?
It is impossible to make everyone adhere to the golden rule, but why. Is it human nature to seek out conflict? Must we be better off than the next man? Why do we need more, more, more? Is the reason we will never achieve a fair and balanced utopia because we as a species don't want one?


	bleachededen wrote: No matter how many good people band together and promote good works and deeds, there will still be just as many others doing bad things, and there is nothing to be done about that.

This is true throughout history good has vanquished evil many times and the world hasn't gotten any better. I think the reason is we only band together in a global emergency, we only fight the big fights. Why is it that we can't take a firm stand against someone getting their leg chopped off? Not having any peer pressure to do something no matter how small makes it easier to turn of the TV and go play Frisbee golf in the park.
Giving in to the weight of such a big job, and just saying screw it theirs nothing I can do is not productive. Say that there is nothing anyone can do is counter productive because someone might be listening.

bleachededen · Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:00 pm

Just because I know that problems exist but understand that I can't help solve every problem of everyone in the world everyday does not mean I am doing anything "counter-productive."

What would you have people do? Become Superheroes? Give up their lives to run from place to place trying to "vanquish evil" wherever it may pop up? This is unrealistic and impossible. I don't say impossible to say that no one wants to help "save the world," but that it is not likely, practical, or productive for everyone to give up their lives in order to save people from situations that are far more complicated than just "wow that's a bad guy let's go arrest him." It's not as simple as all that, and again, just because I am aware of that doesn't make me a bad person. If someone is in trouble and I can help in any way, then yes, I will. But if someone is in trouble where my intervention would make little difference but would upheave my own life and leave me stranded, then no, I am not going to try to help them. This does not make me a bad "they." It makes me a normal person.

You do what you can and if you can't live with yourself just doing that, then do more, but you can't look down on everyone else for not assuming they can help every person in need all of the time. That is what I mean by impossible.

Interbane · Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:27 pm

Just by being here and getting involved in discussion is doing something. In fact, it does more than you think. The most vital component to the progress of our global society is education and withdrawal from superstition and mysticism.


	Quote: That is the question where is the line between good and bad?

I hope I didn't imply that. Part of the problem is the idea that there is a line in the first place. There isn't. As soon as you start drawing lines and categorizing people, you're guilty of abiding by some exclusionary ideology. Each person is their own unique "case".


	Quote: That's pretty interesting, I hadn't heard that before. Of course, the psychologist in me wonders if the people who raise their hands actually HAD experienced a one in a million coincidence. We do tend to think that our own experiences are more unlikely and unusual than they actually are.

Aye, self serving bias. It's idealistic to think numerical odds can be applied to such scenarios in the first place. They're useful for intuition pumps, but are likely never near the mark. Yet the correlation of older people raising their hands with increased odds is remarkable.


	Quote: Another cool thing to think about is how large the population is. This means that specific unlikely events occur in large numbers, even though they have low relative frequency. That's why there are thousands of lottery jackpot winners, and tons of stories about people making a killing in Vegas, but the odds of that happening to you are still pretty small.

Right, such is the underlying cause of most(if not all) claimed miracles. There's always the story of something incredible happening to "my brother's uncle's girlfriend". Like, she fell from the top of a ten story building and lived. Meanwhile, thousands fall from the same height and die. The more people that fall from such a height, the more likely it is that one of them will survive. Then one someone actually does survive, idiots start running around screaming "miracle" without realizing the inevitability of the incident.

KipperSnacks · Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:48 pm

I don't want anyone to go anywhere, but I do want the discussion to consist of more than, "that's terrible, but we can't do anything about it." I just want people to raise awareness. Don't be silly and think I'm asking you to put yourself out in any way. All you have to do is pick a problem and tell two friends then they'll tell two friends and so on. The more people you tell the more likely you are to get the word to someone that has the means to try and solve a problem. If your argument is that people aren't super heros that can fly across oceans and karate chop bad guys, then I don't know what your responding to than your jumping to the conclusion that I think the answer is violence. What I want is the spread of information. Just treat it like gossip if it helps. You can start in your own community. Is impossible to tell people that you need more mental heath facilities for the homeless, or more topical curriculum in schools. It's not all or nothing, just take a baby step now and then.

KipperSnacks · Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:00 pm


	Interbane wrote: I hope I didn't imply that. Part of the problem is the idea that there is a line in the first place. There isn't. As soon as you start drawing lines and categorizing people, you're guilty of abiding by some exclusionary ideology. Each person is their own unique "case".

But there is a line. There must be a decision level where you must say that a human being knows what they are doing is wrong. You made an excellent point about a member of the Taliban believing the difference between what is right and wrong is what the Tailban as a whole believe is right or wrong, not what I believe. That person kills and dies for a cause he believes in, he feels justified. That does not make him exempt from a higher moral code. If you cannot differentiate between what you have always believed and what is clearly right than you have crossed some line.

caseyjo · Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:12 pm


	KipperSnacks wrote: I don't want anyone to go anywhere, but I do want the discussion to consist of more than, "that's terrible, but we can't do anything about it." I just want people to raise awareness. Don't be silly and think I'm asking you to put yourself out in any way. All you have to do is pick a problem and tell two friends then they'll tell two friends and so on. The more people you tell the more likely you are to get the word to someone that has the means to try and solve a problem. If your argument is that people aren't super heros that can fly across oceans and karate chop bad guys, then I don't know what your responding to than your jumping to the conclusion that I think the answer is violence. What I want is the spread of information. Just treat it like gossip if it helps. You can start in your own community. Is impossible to tell people that you need more mental heath facilities for the homeless, or more topical curriculum in schools. It's not all or nothing, just take a baby step now and then.

I get what you're saying here, and I do think it's important for people to be active in their community. I can't imagine that I'm the only one here who has participated in grassroots activism, in raising awareness, or in donating money to a cause. But helping the homeless and changing curriculum in schools is quite a different thing from stopping rape and murder and eliminating the evil in the world. The first two cases are solvable problems, the latter have plagued humans since the beginning. Some crises don't seem to have immediate solutions, such as the problem of peace in the middle east. Even things that seem black and white can be more complicated. I'm sure everyone here can say that murder is wrong, but consider the plot of John Grishman's novel "A Time to Kill," in which a black man kills the man who raped his young daughter because he fears the white-run court system will not bring him justice. Who's completely good in this situation? Who is evil?

It would be nice to have some dividing line between good and evil, between right and wrong, but I fear there is not one. I believe all we can do is try to live the best lives we can, and attempt to convince others around us to do the same.


	Interbane wrote: Just by being here and getting involved in discussion is doing something. In fact, it does more than you think. The most vital component to the progress of our global society is education and withdrawal from superstition and mysticism.

I agree, open discussion, knowledge, and thought can go a long way.

KipperSnacks · Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:42 pm

I agree that not all problem are equal, so we must start from the bottom up. If we're always doing the easiest thing we're always doing the easiest thing

Interbane · Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:45 pm


	Quote: But there is a line. There must be a decision level where you must say that a human being knows what they are doing is wrong.

Some situations are clear cut and obvious, but that doesn't mean every situation is clear cut and obvious. In fact, I'd say the vast majority are not clear cut and obvious. The closest I'll come to agreeing is saying that there is a gray zone. By flying a plane into a building, you hop right over the "gray zone" and into "evil" territory. This may give the impression that the middle ground is a "line". Rather than thinking of it as two delineated "fields", one of good and one of evil, think of it as a "spectrum", ranging from very good on one end, to very evil on the other. In the middle area, the gray area, will be areas of controversy.

Here's an example of a scenario that would reside in the middle gray area: You control the lever to divert a train from one track to another. You are handcuffed in place and cannot move, and have no way to summon help. On the track that the train is currently going to travel over in less than a minute are five innocent victims you don't know. On the other track, which you have the option to divert the train to, is someone you love. Would you divert the train to save 5 lives, but suffer the loss of a loved one?

The details of this scenario can be changed around so that the decision is like cutting a hair. Some people would quickly pick one of the options, and other people would choose the other option. I wouldn't say either of those people are correct, and I wouldn't say either are wrong. It's a choice I wouldn't wish on anyone. Such morally ambiguous situations aren't only hypothetical scenarios. They happen in every day life. Good movies are made of such episodes.

KipperSnacks · Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:21 pm

In that scenario the handcuffed person is just another victim. The person that put them in that situation is the one that should be judged. That could instigate another scale of black white and grey. Is a brainwashed twelve year who willingly pulls a trigger that sprays bullets into women and children a victim or a murderer or both. Where is the line between victim and sap.

Forum rules

Science is depressing Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!