Earthtalk

As a scientist, I read Daniel Engber’s article “The Fraudulent Science of Success” (January, 2025 issue of The Atlantic) with great interest. The breadth and depth of the falsification of data by academic business researchers was disturbing as was the degree to which it was ignored by prestigious business schools and journals. I take issue with the use of the words science, scientific, and scientist throughout the article. Scientists have enough trouble with credibility as it is, without also taking on the misbehavior of nonscientists. Because researchers run experiments, collect data, and manipulate it with statistics, does not make them scientists. Using statistical analyis to predict human behavior does not lend itself to objective observation or replication in the field or laboratory, both requisites for true scientific research. The fields of business, economics, and sociology, for three examples, are social sciences at best. This distinction is important to make, especially now, when sicence is under attack by the Trump administration.

Re “At N.Y.U., Students Were Failing Organic Chemistry. Who Was to Blame?” (Education, October 4): Regardless of who is to blame for the poor student performance in Professor Jones’ class, firing him is a classic example of administrative overreaction. As an untenured, 84-year old professor, administrators appear to have taken the easy way out by firing him. A key factor is Professor Jones’ observation that about a decade earlier he noticed a loss of focus in students. I noticed the same phenomenon starting about 15 years ago in the university students I taught, long before the deleterious impact of the pandemic on students’ performance. Many of my colleagues around the country have noticed the same change. Something bigger has been going on, something societal in scope. Over-pampering of children by parents and teachers combined with soaring tuition has turned students into entitled customers demanding to be catered to as such. The student-professor interaction has become far more transactional than in previous years, with administrators increasingly inclined to side with their customers. Students expect their professors to be like either Mr. Rogers or Stephen Colbert and woe to those less entertaining ones who dare to assign poor performers the grades they deserve.

To the Editor: Over the past year I have spent numerous days in a prestigious hospital, where I am continuously impressed by the dedication and courage of the nurses, doctors and other staff. My wife and I recently engaged a nurse in conversation about patients who refuse to be vaccinated. Their refusal put her and her colleagues at great risk, and she was angry, fed up with the senselessness of it. She spoke of patients who refused a diagnosis of Covid-19 right up to the moment they died from it. As an immunocompromised elderly person, I, too, am angered by the anti-vaccine, maskless crowd putting my life at risk. Their so-called “freedom” is my imprisonment, forcing me to avoid grocery stores, restaurants, subways and any other venue where people gather. Politicians and others who, for political gain, fan the flames of this resistance are responsible for thousands of avoidable deaths and need to be held accountable, starting at the ballot box. NY Times 12-20-21

Two days ago the Republican National Committee passed a resolution removing their support for Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for their participation in the bipartisan Congressional committee investigating the insurrection. It isn't the knifing of Cheney and Kinsinger that is disturbing since this is par for the GOP course, it is the declaration that the Jan 6 attempted coup was "legitimate political discourse" that has raised eyebrows. Since when is threatening to hang the Vice Presidentlegitimate political discourse? Or undermining the orderly transfer of power after a fair and open election? Is, as one protestor did, taking a dump in the halls of congress legititmate discourse? Actually it is a more logical statement the the RNC's resolution that starts off with this catelog of lies and misinformation: "WHEREAS, The Biden Administration and Democrats in Congress have embarked on a systematic effort to replace liberty with socialism; eliminate border security in favor of lawless, open borders; create record inflation designed to steal the American dream from our children and grandchildren; neuter our national defense and a peace through strength foreign policy; replace President “ OperationWarp Speed with incompetence and illegal mandates; and destroy America's economy with the Green New Deal" Oh, no! Not SOCIALISM! Notice they don't say it will replace democracy, just "liberty". Among other things. their liberty appears to refer to freedom to carry guns openly, with no license and freedom to not wear masks even if others might die as a result. Never mind that suicides, the leading cause of gun deaths, are climbing as guns become easier to obtain and that the vast majority of people now dying from Omicron and Delta are those who refuse to wear masks. So here we are, a cheating real estate hustler and abuser of women and law, now owns a major political party and commands an inordinate amount of media attention. Is it an anomaly that this corrupt criminal has a chance to become president again or is it the wave of the future? The next two elections will provide the answer.

There is one sure way to put an end to the rise of the Trump wing of the Republican Party, vote them out of office. A 2021 Gallup poll found that 49% of adults identify/lean towards the Democratic Party compared to 40% for the GOP. A massive voter turnout should strongly favor the Democrats but recent CNN polling shows that only 28% of all registered voters are enthusiastic about voting in 2022. Democratic and Republican registered voters are essentially even with 31% and 32% respectively being enthusiastic about voting in 2022. If this translates into a low voter turnout then Democrats are in trouble. The problem is further compounded by Republican gerrymandering in the red states. The same CNN poll shows that only 31% of all Americans approve of the Republican leadership in Congress compared to 45% approving of the Democratic leadership. There is more at stake than Democrats losing control of Congress. A CIA advisory panel has concluded that America is an “anocracy”, a form of government between a democracy and an autocracy. If the GOP in its current form wins the House and Senate, the erosion of our democracy will accelerate. Should Trump run and win in 2024, America may well become a full blown autocracy. If this prospect does not stir the Democratic and Democratic-leaning Independents to go to the polls in 2022 and 2024, then we will deserve what we get.

 Most of the media and, of course, GOP Congressmen are taking turns piling on Biden for the way the withdrawal from Afghanistan played out.  I have yet to read or hear one of them propose a viable alternative that would have been better.  Adding more troops to secure the airport and help refugees get there would have drawn a military response from the Taliban and put more soldiers in harms way.  Leaving sooner or later would have changed nothing.  This was going to happen no matter what. In the long run historians will look favorably on what Biden has done.  His intelligence and military advisors provided faulty information for 20 years and, in the end, it came home to roost as the Afghan army collapsed and the government disintegrated. This was not Biden's fault.

 

The war is over!  The war is over!  We won! We what?  We lost? Could not be.  We have nukes and the Taliban has swords.  We have great uniforms and the Taliban has turbans and baggy pants.  Well this is a hell of a note that has never happened before.  What?  It happened in Vietnam?  No kidding.  I thought we won that one. We had great body counts.  Biden lost the war!  Biden lost the War! What, he didn't?  We lost it from the start?  Why did we stay?  Money and stupid pride?  Really?  Eisenhower warned us, you say?  Who was Eisenhower? 

 

A lot of people think the government should be run like a business and were excited when Trump was elected.  Obviously, he failed at running his businesses and the government but even a great CEO could not run the government like a business.  The systems are totally different and require different skill sets.   CEO’s have nearly total control of how corporations are run.  He or she can make major, unilateral decisions without having to get prior approval. A president must be willing to compromise to make progress whereas a CEO is basically an autocrat.

Our government has three co-equal branches that share the power.  The president must get congressional approval for many major proposals to be enacted. Congress even controls the budget and often totally ignores the one submitted by a president. If he breaks a law or does something unconstitutional, he or she can be impeached in the House, tried in the Senate, and removed from office.  Every four years the people get to weigh in and can re-elect or reject him or her. CEO’s just have to keep their share holders happy by making profits.

We have witnessed an autocratic business man run the country for four years and he has proven to be the worst president in history.  True, his erratic behavior and lack of morals didn’t help, but the “business” decisions he made that were aimed at helping the economy were all failures.  His tariff wars, for example, have only led to higher prices for American consumers.  His big tax cut for the rich failed to jump start the economy in any meaningful way and left the working class behind.  Opening up the economy at the cost of nearly a quarter million lives and counting backfired as the pandemic surged.  The federal government is not profit-driven and, in fact, it is often good for the economy to run up a debt by investing in things like infrastructure, healthcare, education, and new energy technology. This is especially true when interest rates are low like they are now.

Would some other CEO have done a better job?  Maybe, but not by ruling like a CEO but by ruling like a true politician.   

 

The 20th century explosion of cities and agriculture in the American southwest were based on a false sense of security provided by Hoover Dam and its promise of an abundant water supply.   Water planning was based on climate studies of the previous thirty years which turned out to be part of one of the three wettest centuries in the past 1300 years.  A deeper analysis would have shown that since at least 900 AD, mega droughts lasting for up to a century had been the norm rather than the exception.  This gross overestimation of future available water led to the current water crisis that may well plague the southwest for the foreseeable future, even without the impacts of climate change.