But first, let me call attention a 9-year-old who managed to properly debunk bad “adult” science. Emily Rosa, the youngest person ever to be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (JAMA), conducted an experiment in which she tested the validity of therapeutic touch as a legitimate medical practice. She conducted a scientific, controlled experiment and concluded that therapeutic touch is bogus. You see, children are quite capable of achieving scientific achievements – when they conduct their experiments correctly. And good for her. Emily Rosa is shedding light on the truth and expunging darkness.

Now, as to the criticisms of my critique of Aidan solar powered “breakthrough.”

The purpose of my article was not to tear down 13-year-old Aidan.

He is 13 years old. He is bound to make mistakes. It is to be expected. I know that. I have nothing but praise and encouragement in my article for Aidan. I reserve my judgement for the non-13-year-olds who didn’t notice his mistakes.

While it is perfectly acceptable for a 13-year-old to make mistakes in his science project, it is completely unacceptable for the adults at the American Museum of Natural History to overlook those mistakes. It is unacceptable for the media outlets to overlook them. It is unacceptable for the hundreds of adults who thoughtlessly lavished praise on Aidan to have overlooked them. This demonstrates a lack of logical and critical thinking skills in what are supposedly educated adults. These same adults get to vote in elections for leaders who are not simply mistakenly, but often quite nefariously peddling bogus science and bogus policies. That scares me. How are these adults supposed to discern truth from fiction? Especially when the truth isn’t hidden behind a few easily identifiable mistakes, but rather carefully covered up under pseudo-science and piles of rhetorical BS.

People need to stop and think. That was the main purpose of my article.

It is not unloving or psychologically damaging to point out someone’s mistakes.

Child or no, when someone is pursuing a path of folly, the most loving thing someone can do is help that person get off that path and back on the correct one. Aidan has a lot of great curiosity and ingenuity. Why would anyone want to let him waste it?

When I was 13, I won my school’s high school science fair with a science experiment that supposedly proved that perpetual motion could be achieved through a contraption I created using magnets. Of course, I was wrong. Aidan was wrong about the results of his science experiment as well. We were both 13-year-old kids who didn’t have the knowledge or experience to properly understand and test the things we were working with. We also were never corrected.

Encouraged by my win, I spent years, unguided by adults, pursuing a hobby of creating free energy with my contraption that eventually led to failure. Looking back, there were other scientific achievements I was interested in achieving that I did not pursue because I thought I was onto something with this perpetual motion thing. What could I have accomplished had my mind and energy been guided away from futile pursuits and towards more promising ones? I guess we will never know.

“Where bad science starts” was not a reference to Aidan’s faulty methods, but rather a reference to the nearly unanimous consensus that validated those faulty methods.

We are surrounded by bad science. Sometimes that bad science is the product of mistakes, as Aidan’s experiment was. Other times, it is the product of ideologues purposefully manipulating data. Either way, it usually doesn’t take an expert to identify and debunk this bad science. We all should be experts on a certain level: We all should understand basic logic, basic math, the scientific method, etc.

Bad science “starts” when bogus findings manage to break out of the laboratory via mass media and quickly become accepted fact by the masses of adults who could and should be sniffing it out for what it is: bad science. How does this happen? My article concludes that the main cause of this is that we are blinded by the implications of the results of this “bad science” and choose not to critically examine the methods used to achieve these results.

Most people are in agreement that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant meltdown was a disaster. It is not illogical to assume that this has the potential to have a very negative impact on the environment and on the health of living organisms. An article was published in Al Jazeera titled, Fukushima: It’s much worse than you think, Scientific experts believe Japan’s nuclear disaster to be far worse than governments are revealing to the public. Naturally, people assumed that this article was reporting truth. It was tweeted 9,878 times and liked on Facebook 49,000 times. As a result, people were led to believe that infant mortality rates in the northwest of the United States had increased by 35% and that the government was doing something to cover it up.

Only one problem. It wasn’t true. Michael Moyer at Scientific American, very easily and clearly demonstrated how these so-called scientists had used selective and manipulated data to falsely conclude that the Fukushima disaster was causing babies to die at alarming rates in the United States.

But the damage was already done. It is likely that are more people who read and believed this bogus science reported on by Al Jazeera and other media outlets and used it to validate and confirm their preexisting beliefs than there are people who read Michael Moyer’s debunking article. Whether or not those beliefs are grounded in reality has now become a moot point: The point is they are being reinforced by falsehood.

This often can cause an ideological stalemate: No side of a debate can make a legitimate claim at truth because no side has purged its argument of the bogus science used to support its claims. Thus, elections, policy decisions and the like become less of a contest of truth vs. falsehood, and more of a contest of who can get their BS to reach the widest audience and garner the largest following. Both sides of the debate become tainted, and truth becomes nearly impossible to find.

The global implications are dangerous.

There are several major debates raging right now in the political landscape: Global warming, universal health care, stem-cell research, and Iran’s uranium enrichment program to name a few. All of these debates have very definite science to back them up – and science is used on both sides of the debate. Much of that science is bad science, but it can be found on both sides. Somewhere out there, the truth is hidden. Why is it so hard to discover?

It is hard to discover because people like Michael Moore, find it necessary to be propagandists of truth rather than preachers of it. That is why it is so easy to find falsehoods in his documentaries. When Moore released “Sicko” a so-called documentary that pleads the case for universal health care in the U.S. the debate quickly became about whether or not Moore was lying in his documentary and not about relevant, debatable facts in the health care debate. Michael Moore probably has some very valid and important points to make. It is too bad they are swimming in BS.

Even the World Health Organization’s rating system has be called into question over the scientific basis of its ranking the U.S. health care system. One thing I found interesting was the discrepancies among developed nations on how they calculated infant mortality. Not only are the numbers very difficult to compare, but high infant mortality rates in a country actually might reveal very little about the health care system of that country and more about rates of teen pregnancy. It is like making the argument that country A has bad health care because more people die of lung cancer and heart disease there, when the reality is that country A has great health care, but has a bad problem with high smoking rates and unhealthy diets.

Of course, the CATO Institute, the publisher of the paper criticizing the WHO, has had its own motivations called into question and been criticized of being more motivated by ideology than science. Both the WHO and the CATO institute both have nuggets of truth on their side of the argument. Sadly, any useful and valid points they want to make are tainted by the BS that supposedly also found its way into their reports.

Do you see how quickly the debate has moved away from “truth” and more towards who has more motivation to lie about what and whom? The only way this can happen is when the general public is unable to discern truth for themselves and must rely on others to tell them what is true and not. Now, it is only a question of who we are going to listen to – and even deciding that is often based on arguments that are peppered with falsehood. It becomes one giant manipulation machine.

It doesn’t have to be like this.

Each one of us have decently developed brains and are capable of independent thought, critical thinking, and good research. With the internet at our fingertips, we have access to a vast library of information – all we have to do is look for it and figure out how to sort the good information from the bad information. It isn’t very hard to do.

I am surprised that in retractions and corrections to the Aidan solar power breakthrough story, the media has finally decided to exercise more caution, saying things like, “the findings have been called into question,” or that he “may have been disproved.” Where was the caution when the story was breaking?

The funny thing about all this is that caution isn’t really that necessary. You don’t have to be an expert on solar power or a PhD scientist to see that Aidan’s experiment was seriously flawed. Every single one of us can use our brains and our critical thinking skills to parse through the “bad science” in Aidan’s experiment.

It is this “deferring to the experts” – letting so-called experts do our thinking for us, that is the real danger here. We find ourselves becoming pawns in a manipulation game by propagandists, rather than true experts, and we never will know what the truth really is.

Stop deferring to the experts. You are the expert.

And that is the ultimate point of my original article. Yes, Aidan’s solar power experiment was flawed. Someone needs to lovingly point it out to him and encourage him to keep going. All this is true. But more importantly, all the people who were involved in mass producing and validating this bogus claim need to stop buying into the hype and start thinking for themselves. Aidan’s experiment should have probably never received an award for scientific achievement. It should have never been validated and reported on as a “breakthrough” by the media. It should have never received the thousands of “shares” and kudos from smart, educated adults all over the world. It should have been identified as problematic at best, dead wrong at worst, and then taken from there.

If a 13-year-old kid can accidentally fool us all, how much hope do we really have against the powers that be who have a vested interest in fooling us so that they can get elected or pass a policy that is to their advantage and our destruction?

Please, my friends. Start thinking. Or we are all screwed.

I recently read this Gizmodo article that questioned whether or not the results of a 13-year-old kid, Aidan’s, science experiment was properly debunked.  Aidan’s science experiment is noteworthy for three reasons: (1) He claimed to have increased the efficiency of solar cell power generation by simply arranging them in a Fibonacci  (Golden Ration) pattern copied from the leafing pattern of plants found in nature, (2) his findings, published as an essay, received a “Young Naturalist Award” from the American Museum of Natural History (and a provisional patent, no less), and (3) this was reported on and praised as “genius” and a “breakthrough” by several noteworthy magazines such as Poplar Science, Slashdot, and The Atlantic Wire.

So here’s the problem. Aidan did not actually discover a more efficient way to convert solar energy into power as he claimed and these numerous publications reported. In fact, Aidan’s essay, while extremely well written, contains methodological flaws and incorrect conclusions. This rebutted published on blogspot by The Capacity Factor (and then subsequently removed) correctly and thoroughly explains why Aidan’s findings are inaccurate.  However, the Gizmodo article I read stated:

“Many of you in the comments remarked that 13-year-old Aidan Dwyer’s breakthrough was nothing new. Fair enough. But it’d be different if someone totally disproved it. One blogger claims to have done it. Can I get an expert in here?“

And:

NOW! I am no expert, so I can’t make any assertions as to the veracity of Mr. Blogspot’s claims. Graphs looks great, but what do you guys think?

Even The Atlantic Wire‘s article about the debunking did not provide much further explanation or analysis. It simply reported the facts of the story: Kid is praised for solar power “breakthrough.” Blog debunks findings. Here is a summary of the blog’s findings. Blog blames media for the mess.

Of course, I guess it is acceptable/safe for The Atlantic Wire to report the way it did by simply reporting the facts and to not interject with opinion or commentary.  However, Gizmodo articles, like the one I read, are specifically written in a commentary/opinion style.  Therefore, I was dismayed that Giz writer, Kwame Opam, felt that he needed to be an expert to verify The Capacity Factor’s findings.

You don’t need to be an expert to verify that Aidan’s findings are incorrect. I’ll admit, The Capacity Factor’s blog post was certainly a bit overlaiden with techno-jargon and can seem complicated and difficult to understand. But the flaws in Aidan’s science experiment are actually quite simple. They are so simple, in fact, that someone at the American Museum of Natural History should have noticed them. To be fair, the award might have simply been for his writing style and the fact that he praises nature, but for some reason I don’t buy that: “Young Naturalist Award” seems to imply the award is for a scientific achievement, not an essay-writing one.

Or someone at Popular Science, The Atlantic Wire, Slashdot, or Gizmodo should have noticed the flaws with Aidan’s work, yet it seems that they either glossed over the essay or did not understand what was wrong with it. In fact, any lay person with a basic understanding of science or 15 minutes of time to do a few Google searches (as I did for this blog post) and re-aquatint themselves with what they (hopefully) learned in high school should have caught the flaws in Aidan’s paper. Yet, not only did none of these media outlets stumble upon these flaws, even those reporting on the expressly admitted that they still did not understand the reasoning.

This would seem to me why so much bad science passes for good science these days. Please allow me to lay out my case, and perhaps hopefully re-explain The Capacity Factor’s debunking so that it can be understood by all the non-experts out there:

1. Nature generally doesn’t achieve maximum efficiency.

Nature usually operates by finding efficient minimums. That is, traits found in nature naturally develop and survive as long as they are the bare minimum necessary to survive – not the efficient maximum.  Nature can be extremely inefficient. It is faulty to assume that trees have a pattern of leafing that maximize their sunlight exposure. Rather, it would be correct to assume that trees have developed a pattern that give them the minimum necessary amount of sunlight exposure to survive long enough to reproduce. That, however, is not efficiency.

From Aidan’s essay:

I now had my first piece of the puzzle but it did not answer the question, Why do trees have this pattern?

Good science always starts with good research. See what others have done in the past, then find out where they went wrong, right, or can be improved upon. Aidan did excellent research about the history of the Fibonacci sequence, and Charles Bonnet’s observations of the sequence existing in tree branch growth. However, he did not appear to research the answer to his actual question: Why do trees have this (Fibonacci) pattern?

Aidan correctly notes that Fibonacci numbers appear almost everywhere in nature: Galaxies, moth wings, seashells, finger bones, Saturn’s rings, pine cones, honey bee colonies, etc. A few good articles on this can be found at: HowStuffWorks.com, World-Mysteries.com, University of Chicago’s Prof. Narain’s Golden Ratio Page, and MathIsFun.com. MathIsFun.com explains the answer to Aidan’s question best. In summary, the Golden Ratio is an irrational number, thus creating an ever expanding spiral pattern with few gaps.

The quick and easy answer is that the Golden Ratio is a pattern that naturally reveals itself in things that are growing. As MathIsFun.com put it:

Leaves, branches and petals can grow in spirals, too.

Why? So that new leaves don’t block the sun from older leaves, or so that the maximum amount of rain or dew gets directed down to the roots.

And here is where Aidan began to go wrong. Over time, plants grow. New branches and leaves are constantly forming and need to do so in such a way that they don’t harm previously existing ones. Solar panels don’t grow.  They are designed, arranged, and set up by humans at one time and don’t change in size, structure, or arrangement ever again unless someone comes along and changes them.

Aidan observed that Oak trees branch out in a Fibonacci pattern. But it is not necessarily to maximize sunlight exposure. Miximizing sunlight exposure doesn’t explain seashells, galaxies, or pine-cones. Rather, the Fibonacci sequence is a growth pattern. It is found in things that grow all over the place. You see, Aidan failed to factor in “constant changes over time” as the reason, thus setting himself up for failure with a faulty experiment.

If, like solar cells, plants just deployed themselves and didn’t grow from a tiny sappling to a gigantic tree, they would not maximize sunlight exposure by arranging themselves in the Fibonacci pattern as Aidan incorrectly assumed.

2. Optimal orientation is deductively derived using very few (and all possible) variables and therefore cannot be improved upon.

Inductive reasoning is a type of intuitive logic that involves observation. Observation is highly susceptible to misinterpretation. Deductive reasoning, however, involves provable mathematical constants: The conclusion always follows the premises. Inductive logic would be like looking at the heights of three men and noting which one is tallest and shortest based on simple observation. Deductive reasoning would be using math to determine the same thing: A > B, B > C, therefore, A > C.

Aidan decided to perform an inductive experiment to compare the efficiency of different arrangements of solar panels.  There is only one problem: This has already been mathematically proven using geometry and algebra, and no amount of observation will improve upon that math.

Aidan’s experiment compared solar cells arranged in a Fibonacci pattern like an Oak Tree, and compared the output to the optimum orientation of Solar Panels. Had Aidan understood why there is an optimum orientation for solar panels, he would have been able to conclude that it is mathematically impossible to improve upon this design. MACS Lab Inc., an environmental, health, and safety consulting service, explains the math behind optimum orientation pretty well on its website.

Basically, there are two factors in determining optimality: Latitude, and time of year. The goal of optimum orientation is to have fixed solar panels face the sun as directly as possible, allowing them to gather the maximum amount of sun rays taking into account the movement of the sun across the sky during a given day.

This orientation is called optimal because it produces a maximum exposure to the sun’s rays. This is mathematically impossible to be improved upon.  You cannot out-max a mathematically maximized number. Any deviation from the optimal angle will produce inferior results.

3. Increasing the number of something generally doesn’t change the outcome.

This is the most fundamental flaw with Aidan’s experiment, and the first thing everyone should have noticed. If solar cell A is placed at an angle that maximizes its own individual power production, and solar cell B is placed at any different angle, it will produce less power every single time. If this is true for one solar cell, this is true for 100 solar cells. You can’t add “smaller” numbers together to get a larger total than the same number of “larger” numbers.

Lets say you have 10 solar cells collecting power at an “optimal” level, that means each solar cell is maximizing its intake. Lets say they all are maximized at 5 watts (Watts is the unit that measures power – look at your electric bills. Notice that the more of these you use, the higher your bill is.). The total maximum power that can be collected is 50 watts.

Now, lets say you have an arrangement of 10 solar cells where any one of them is arranged so that it is not at “optimal” level. That means individually it will not collect 5 watts of energy. It might collect 4.5 watts, or 4.7 watts, or 3… but not 5. Logically, you will never get 50 watts of total energy if any single individual cell is collecting less than its maximum (5). In the case of Aidan’s experiment, all his solar cells are arranged at different angels, so every single one (except one) must be collecting a “suboptimal” amount of power. There is no magic mathematical formula that will allow these numbers to add up to a larger total than the ones arranged at the optimal angle. It is pretty simple logic, so you don’t have to be a math whiz to get this concept.

Of course, Aidan’s experiment goes one step further. His tree pattern actually uses more solar cells to gather light than his control group. Now he’s not even comparing the same thing! If 18 people can lift more weight than 10 people, there wasn’t an efficiency gain, there’s simply more people doing work. In the case of Aidan’s experiment, he compares the electronic generation of 10 solar cells in one pattern to that of 18 solar cells in a different pattern, then claims that the pattern was the cause of the 18-cell configuration gathering more electricity. Hmmm… that just doesn’t make any sense at all, does it?

4. Voltage is not a measure of power.

And here is where the entire experiment falls apart.

Most people don’t understand what voltage is, and warning signs are entirely to blame. You’ve all seen the signs: Danger! High Voltage, right? We all know that a certain amount of electricity can hurt you, and a higher amount can kill you. By saying Danger! High Voltage, we are lead to believe that voltage is a measure of the amount of electricity. It is not.

Voltage is a measure of the level of attraction (electrical potential) between a positive and negative.

The human body can build up to 25,000 “volts” of static electricity, but there’s almost NO power involved – if there were, a simple static shock would easily kill you. Obviously, when you experience static shock, there isn’t a lot of power transfer going on. Power is voltage times current. Current is basically the number of electrons flowing through a medium, and voltage is the “speed” with which they move (this isn’t entirely accurate, but it paints the right kind of picture for the uninitiated).

Danger! High Voltage signs aren’t warning about the amount of electricity. They are warning you, “Hey, this electricity really wants to get out of here – if you so much as walk near this circuit it might jump across the air and go into you!”

Think about a battery: A 12V battery is always 12V whether its fully charged or almost dead (this is actually not entirely true, but simplified for the sake of example – see comments below where someone gives a more accurate explanation). A constant electron flow comes out of it at 12V until it runs out of stored energy. Eventually the battery has almost no power left, but it has always had 12V of electricity. If Aidan were to measure the voltage of two 12V batteries – one brand new one and one nearly dead, they would both read 12V. Obviously that measurement isn’t going to tell him anything about the amount of power stored in the battery, is it?

From Aidan’s essay:

I measured the performance of each model with a data logger. This recorded the voltage that each model made over a period of time. The data logger could download the measurements to a computer, and I could see the results in graphs.

“Making voltage” is not making electricity.

I’m not entirely sure why Aidan thought that he could measure power intake by measuring voltage on his solar cells. I’m not entirely sure why the different arrangements yielded different voltage totals (see first comment below for explanation of this). I do know that solar cells are designed to convert energy from photons into potential energy in the form of electrons: “charging the battery.” Levels of voltage have nothing to do with how charged that battery is, however, and at no time during his experiment was Aidan actually measuring how much power was being converted by each of the solar cell arrangements.

Here is what I am sure of: No one bothered to correct him. Everyone who read Aidan’s essay and reported on it simply assumed that voltage was something it was not. This is possibly because no knew what unit of measurement was used to measure power, or no one bothered to take a few seconds to look it up.

Here is one way Aidan could have measured electric power being produced in his solar cells. Also, Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 of “Learn Physics Today” from Oracle’s ThinkQuest site explain what power actually is, and how it differentiates from voltage.

So then why did Aidan get different voltage readings at different times of day on the setups? Voltage on a circuit is measured using a voltmeter, or the voltmeter setting on a multimeter. This video explains how to use a multimeter. Readings can only be properly taken on an open or closed circuit that is powered. Now, keep in mind, this is not measuring the number of electrons moving through a circuit. This is measuring the force with which through those electrons are moving through.

Historically, voltage was called “tension” and “pressure.”  Think of it like water moving through a hose with a pump at the end. The water itself is the electrons (current). The more you turn up the pump, the greater the difference in water pressure between the pump and the end of the hose. That is your voltage reading.

Keep in mind, how high the pump is turned up does not necessarily indicate how much water is coming out the end of the hose. For example, if the hose is plugged at the end, the water pressure on that hose will be high (high voltage), but the actual amount of water (electrons) moving through the hose is zero. Zero electricity is being produced. You can adjust the pump up or down, thereby increasing or decreasing the water pressure (changing the voltage), but you aren’t changing the amount of electricity moving through the hose, because there is still none moving through it.

The key to all of this is the presence of water. If there is no water present, it doesn’t matter how high or low the pump is set – there will be no water pressure. Now, you understand why Aidan got voltage readings during daylight and none during nighttime.

As the sun came up, the solar cells began to convert sunlight into electricity – the water was being added to the pumping system.  All of the sudden he started to get voltage readings. There were electrons present which wanted to move from one end of a circuit to another with a certain amount of force – and Aidan was measuring the force with which they wanted to move – not how many electrons were actually present.  Because Aidan was completing the circuit with his voltmeter, the electrons were free moving through the circuit and not building up at one end of the other. Therefore, once the sun went down, there were no more new electrons being introduced to the circuit, and therefore the pressure, or voltage, dropped because there was no potential energy to measure anymore.

So, why did Aidan get two consistently different voltage readings from the two different circuits? Going back to the water pump example, any number of things can affect the operation of the pump, or how much pressure it can create. These might include temperature, how old the pump is, and when the pump was built. Who really knows what the specific factors were that changed the voltage on Aidan’s circuit (David Keenan does – it has to do with heat – see his comments below) – but those voltage levels he got would have been the same difference no matter what.  If Aidan placed his higher voltage circuit in partial shade up in Canada and his lower voltage circuit in direct sunlight down at the equator, he still would have received a high voltage reading off the one circuit and a low voltage reading off the other. Of course, now this would cease to make sense because obviously the solar cells in partial shade and way further north couldn’t possibly be creating more electricity than ones in direct sunlight at the equator. In fact, if Aidan had oriented his Fibonacci solar cells in new and random patterns, he would have still gotten the same voltage reading. Solar cell orientation had nothing to do with the voltage readings.

That is ultimately why Aidan couldn’t detect his experiment’s failure. Just like the Canada/shade equator/direct-sunlight comparison, the two solar cell arrangements Aidan was working with were equally dissimilar. The solar cells at optimal orientation had a huge advantage over the ones in the tree pattern – I already explained how this was so mathematically - but Aidan wasn’t measuring the amount of electricity being generated – he was measuring how fast that electricity could be generated on his circuit and one had nothing to do with the other.

5. No one stopped to think.

So, Aidan’s experiment was doomed from the start. The experiment was faultily designed using a fixed object to test why a growing object grows in the arrangement it does. It was already deductively (mathematically) proven that there was no possible better way to arrange fixed solar cells to increase electric generation. By increasing the number of solar cells being used in his experiment (necessary to arrange them in a Fibonacci ”pattern”), Aidan was merely increasing the faultiness of it, not the efficiency of it. And finally, when push came to shove and Aidan measured his results, he measured the wrong thing.  Ultimately, this lead Aidan to incorrectly conclude that the arrangement of branches and leaves on trees allows them to gather the most possible sunlight they can. The answer to Aidan’t question is that trees could probably gather more sunlight with a different arrangement, but in order to grow, they must adopt a pattern of growth that allows them to continuously and evenly expand: The Golden Ratio found everywhere in nature. So Aidan was partly-right. At least Aidan was thinking.

All four of the faults with Aidan’s experiment were right there in Aidan’s essay for anyone to discover. Each of them could either be logically deduced with just a tiny bit of knowledge or discovered by doing a couple quick Google searches on the subject. In other words, all someone had to do was stop and think and they would have spotted these problems. Did anyone do this? No. The American Museum of Natural History didn’t stop and think. Popular Science didn’t stop and think. Slashdot, Gizmodo, The Atlantic Wire, UberGizmo, Inhabitat, EarthTechling, and TreeHugger didn’t stop to think either. They all just got caught up in the hype: “Oh, some kid claims to have increased solar cell efficiency! AMNH gave him an award, it must be true! The Fibonacci sequence is involved! Fascinating! Quick, report on it!” And most of these publications claim to be scientific publications. It is sad.

The only person thinking in this story was Aidan. As The Capacity Factor said in its debunking blog post, you can’t blame a 13-year-old kid for this experiment going wrong. All along the way he had to have been misinformed and misguided into building the faulty theories and misunderstanding the basic electronic principals that were necessary to properly conduct his experiment. But at least Aidan was thinking, questioning and searching for answers. None of the people who awarded him or wrote praise about him were.

And that, my friends, is where bad science starts. It starts when adults, professionals, and people perfectly capable of rational, logical, independent thought choose to turn off their brains, fixate on the conclusion of an experiment and choose to either affirm or deny that conclusion based on how happy or unhappy they are with it. This is why we have a divided country on scientific issues such as the nature and causes of global warming, the moral implications of modern stem cell harvesting, and even the very definition of when life begins. No one bothers to work their way through the science. One person publishes something that fascinates or revolts, other scientists jump on a bandwagon and affirm or deny without properly reviewing, media outlets report, even sometimes completely misreport the findings without examining the entire story, and opinionated people make up their mind about what is true or not true based on how they feel about the story without spending much careful time objectively examining the evidence.

Shame on you American Museum of Natural History. Shame on you media outlets who reported on this story. Shame on you commenters who praised Aidan’s findings as “genius,” “obvious,” or something else they weren’t. And congratulations Aidan. Your curious mind and extremely good writing skills gave us all something to think about and even accidentally fooled a lot of smart people into believing the impossible. Don’t ever stop thinking, Aidan.

To see original comments on original blog post, go here.

Followup: This is where bad science leads

People do bad things because human beings are flawed. The justification and reasoning for their behavior comes from whatever is handy. Sometimes the excuse for bad behavior comes from the (mis)interpretation of a religious edict as Salwa has pointed out here. No matter the religion, human beings seem to be masterful at stretching any idea to ridiculous extremes in order to justify their behavior.

One would think that in the absence of religion we wouldn’t have any of these problems. However, that also proves to not be the case as a careful look at recent modern history shows that atrocities have also been committed by the non-religious. To those who argue, “but religiously justified atrocities far outnumber secularly justified atrocities” I simply say this: If the population of the US included 10,000,000 whites and 100 blacks, all other things being equal, wouldn’t you expect whites to commit 100,000 more crimes? In the same way, the ratio of religious minded people to secular minded is quite lopsided, and all things must be considered on a case-by-case basis. The fact remains that with or without religion, people have always managed to constantly challenge the limits of human depravity.

You are probably not as likely to hear about a atheist falling prey to nihilism and killing everyone they know as you are to hear about a Christian shooting an abortion doctor – but both things happen, and both stem from the same depraved aspects of humanity. Religion, invented or not, more often than not makes top priority of trying to address this depravity and correct it. It seems to me quite silly to parade that one (often misinterpreted) religious teaching used to commit an atrocity as the reason why religion is “evil” and reject the one million other teachings that contradict that very evil you deplore while reinforcing (often informing without your realization) your own value system.

Experience has taught me some interesting things contrary to my indoctrination as a child. Growing up, I was taught that without a belief in an established religion, humans were depraved of moral intuition and “anything goes.” I was taught that atheists had no morals or moral compass. Then I met some REALLY nice atheists (some of the nicest people I know) and they certainly proved that idea wrong.

As a former member of UIC RAFT (Rational and Free Thinkers), I was often confronted with the challenge from non-theists that Christians cannot do hard science, they are closed-minded, and they cannot engage in rational discourse. It came as a surprise to many of my colleagues to find out that I believe in a God and that Jesus Christ’s deity. “I never would have guessed that you were religious – you seem so reasonable,” was a common response I received. It also comes as a surprise to many non-theists that many of the most advanced work being done in science and genetics is being done by very devout theists (the first mapping of the human genome was a project headed by a professing Christian).

There is nothing more closed-minded than thinking you’ve finally figured “it” out. “It” could be your ideas about a particular group of people, a particular religion, or even what kind of person someone you know is. If you truly want to be able to claim that you are open-minded, rational, and “freethinking” I encourage you to not just reject the chains of your indoctrination, but also the shackles of your own confident thinking and do less dictating about how the world “is,” and more seeking out and listening to the voices that challenge your own limited perceptions.

I offer this challenge to my Christian brothers and sisters as well as my Muslim brothers and sisters… to my religious brothers and sisters, and my athiest or “non-theist” brothers and sisters. We could all benefit from doing a little more listening and learning about “the others.”

My experience has taught me that this attitude can unfortunately lead to many unintended consequences. For each right we exercise, also comes responsibility. For example, while I can say whatever I want, if I lie or abuse someone verbally I cannot claim “free speech” as a defense against the inevitable consequences.

One of the first things I learned upon enlisting in the Air Force was that my constitutional right to free speech had become severely limited. As a member of the armed forces, anything I said was representative of the military. It is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for commissioned officers to use “contemptuous words” against the President. Enlisted members may be prosecuted for using words “to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”

I soon learned that there were further consequences for exercising my right to free speech. Pissing off the wrong guy can make dangerous enemies, which could be counterproductive to all the good I was trying to accomplish by opening my mouth in the first place.

Once, I was disastrously misquoted while responding to another airman’s misguided concern that because a Korean dry cleaner messed up his laundry, another Korean dry cleaner in town would be just as bad. My response was, “It has nothing to do with being Korean. All the dry cleaners I went to in Chicago were Korean, and I never had a problem.” I soon found myself standing in my commander’s office, who furiously wanted to know why I would have the audacity to say something as racist as, “All dry cleaners in Chicago are run by Koreans.”

Just recently, I caused several people great distress because of another one of my infamously disastrous miscommunications. This time, while making a very frustrated plea with a friend to think of me as an ally and not an enemy, I texted her the words, “You do not want to make an enemy out of me.” These words were obviously interpreted as a threat, although that was the opposite of my intent which was to make peace. What resulted was a very confusing and humiliating exchange with the police, who were tipped off that I might be threatening a young woman.

The point of all this is not to debase myself or to make penance by parading my every faux pas and thoughtless utterance out in public. I hope that from my mistakes a few lessons may be learned about the heavy responsibility of free speech.

First, while many college students may bristle to the idea that their “free speech” can be restricted by an organization to which they belong, it is important to understand that everything you say reflects upon that organization. In the real world, any company or club may disown you if you say something they do not like or it comes to reflect poorly upon them.

Second, just because you feel you should say something does not mean it will have the desired results. While what you say may be true, valid, and necessary – how, when, and even who says it can be very important. You may find that your words can have the unintended consequence of hurting people you didn’t want to hurt, or making enemies you didn’t want to make.

Third, if your words are misinterpreted, no matter whose fault it is, you are probably going to pay the higher price. It is in your best interest to take ownership of all misinterpretations and exercise extreme care to avoid them.

Finally, please remember, there is no such thing as a “private” conversation. Try to avoid saying anything in private that you would not like heard in public. Chances are, the more damaging your private conversations could be, the more likely they are to come out.

In conclusion, I leave you with the words of Solomon, from Proverbs 17:28. I would have been spared much heartache had I put this wisdom into practice more often:

“Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.”

On the one hand, I breathe a sigh of relief that I was raised in a multi-cultural environment surrounded by liberated adults who never even hinted that there may deficiencies in other ethnic groups. On the other hand, I can’t help but think of the numerous generalizations and stereotypes I find myself believing about groups of people. When I saw Avenue Q this summer, I had to chuckle at the grains of truth in the song, “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.” Is it possible that despite my liberal upbringing I too might be a little bit racist?

I have begun to question the common assumption that because racist people “learn” how to be racist from other racists that if we can break that cycle, a new generation of open-minded non-racists will emerge. Earlier this year, I discovered a different cause of racism and it had profound implications on how I live my life.

While cycling the streets of Chicago this year, I have already had three near accidents caused by bad drivers not paying attention. I quickly noticed that all three of the drivers who nearly hit me were all women. After the third close call, I began to think, “Women really are bad drivers!” and was careful to notice the gender of motorists ever since.

This is a stereotype I had rejected for years. What possible genetic trait could logically explain women being worse drivers than men? I could think of none. However, once my life was on the line, it was suddenly natural to form a stereotype that I could never “rationally” believe before.

You see, humans have a natural instinct to seek and recognize patterns everywhere. Even though we may misidentify patterns which can lead to irrational superstitions or unfair stereotypes – this trait helped our ancestors survive and has thus been passed down to us as a useful tool. This instinct is inescapable and it is exactly why we don’t need anyone to teach us to be racist. If we can identify groups, we can teach ourselves to stereotype.

Because stereotyping is part of our survival instinct, it naturally links with fear which paves the way for prejudicial idealizations. While stereotyping isn’t actually racism, it is its natural manure. Therefore, racist behavior can easily grow out of a few bad experiences and never have been directly taught to us. In other words, racism will always be hiding just around the corner.

The “profound implication” was not to be more rational about how I grouped people and to resist the temptation to form unfair stereotypes. The challenge to me is to not become a perpetuator of racism in others about the groups to which I belong. If it is in the nature of other people to draw conclusions about entire groups from just a few representatives, the burden is on me to represent my groups as positively as I can.

I am, among other things a middle-class, white Christian male. My behavior could reinforce negative stereotypes about my groups, or I could create new ones based almost entirely upon something I say or do. This certainly reverses the assumption that racism is something I can help bring to an end by changing my attitudes towards other people. It now becomes my responsibility to help other people change their attitudes about me.

Humans will always categorize and group every aspect of life, especially other humans. We will always seek to find patterns and generalizations to help us understand those groups. This may lead to some very wrong behavior, but the natural mechanism is neither good nor bad: It just is what it is, and has thus far been a useful instinct. The question remains: How will we behave now that we know other people are utilizing this natural mechanism? Will we help stamp out racism by breaking the mold and proving that we are more than just one of many copies within a larger group? Or will we perpetuate racism by finding our identity in the groups to which we belong, behaving just like everyone else in our group, and behave badly not realizing that we are representing so many others?

If racism is really going to come to an end in America, it is entirely upon us to move beyond just self-enlightenment about others, and to start helping others view us as unique individuals and not just members of a group.

Now, I’m not saying that you didn’t get Barack Obama elected. I’m not saying you didn’t overcome odds and break through racial barriers. I’m not saying you didn’t put the McCain-Palin campaign exactly where it belonged: In the loser’s circle. No, I’m certainly not saying that something great hasn’t been accomplished.

What I’m saying is that the challenge of Sen. Obama’s famous New Hampshire Primary Concession Speech given on January 8, 2008 has in no way been even slightly fulfilled yet. What I’m saying is that when Barack Obama said, “Yes we can!” that day, he was challenging all of us to do something – and that something was not to simply vote for him.

“It is not just about what I will do as President. It is also about what you, the people who love this country, the citizens of the United States of America can do to change it.”

President Elect Obama’s speech was not about the simple act of putting a check mark by his name when you vote. It was about so much more than that! President Elect Obama wasn’t challenging the American people to go out and get him elected President so that he could take the reigns and fix all our problems from that point on. President Elect Obama’s speech was the admission that he alone could not accomplish the Change that Americans want so badly. He was challenging us, the American people, to get started and work on bring about that change ourselves!

I am very disheartened when I see how worked up people get about voting. I am not saying the freedom to choose our own leaders is not a wonderful thing. It is a privilege, nay, the fundamental human right, as Thomas Jefferson argued in the Declaration of Independence, and the fact that we live in a country which honors and protects that right is certainly something for which to be grateful.

I am disheartened when I see how worked up people get about voting because that is often the beginning and the end of their civic engagement. Of all freedoms we have in this great nation, of all the things we, the American people are empowered to do to make our world a better place, the act of voting requires probably the least amount of effort, and has one of the lowest amounts of impact on our society.

It is sad that people get it in their heads, “Well, I campaigned; I voted; My guy won; We accomplished our mission; Yes we did.” Is this really where it ends, my brothers and sisters in freedom? Do you honestly think that just because the person you supported for President of the United States has won his election that you have accomplished something so great, so profound that you can go back to your normal everyday life and leave the rest up to him?

President Elect Barack Obama doesn’t think so. As I sat and listened to the speeches, the debates, and more speeches, I have been quite amazed and moved by one simple thing that Senator Obama offered: It doesn’t matter who is elected President if we don’t start mobilizing ourselves – not to vote – to get involved in our communities, to get involved in local politics, to get involved in someone’s life, to fight for real incremental changes, to fight injustices wherever we see them instead of comfortably and passively walking by and turning the other way.

THAT was the challenge that was issued to the American people on January 8, 2008. That is the challenge that we can meet with the simple credo, “Yes we can.” And that is the challenge that we have only begun to work on, and are nowhere near able to answer with the words, “Yes we did.”

So, the next time you feel tempted to put up a sign or wear a t-shirt, or change your status on Facebook or shout those words: “Yes we did,” I hope you take pause. I hope you take pause and think about what it was President Elect Obama was really asking of us to do, and I hope you realize that just because you got the good man elected, you haven’t actually done anything yet!

This is not the end of our journey and the beginning of a President Obama’s journey.

For President Elect Barack Obama, his journey, which began many years ago, continues. Our journey… our journey has barely even begun, and is nowhere near finished.

I leave you with a few short clips and quotes from the “Yes We Can” speech. I hope you take those words to heart and remember that none of this has yet been actually accomplished:

“We can disagree without being disagreeable.”

“If we challenge ourselves to reach for something better: there is no problem we cannot solve, there is no destiny we cannot fulfill.”

“We can end the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.”

“We can stop sending our children to schools that are corridors of shame and start putting them on pathways to success.”

“We can stop talking about how great our teachers are and start rewarding them for their greatness by giving them more pay and more support.”

“We can harness ingenuity… to free this nation from the tyranny of oil.”

“When I am President of the United States, we will end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home. We will finish the job against al Qaeda and Afghanistan. We will care for our veterans. We will restore our moral standing in the world.”

It is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work…

So, in other words: I called it!

********** OBAMA: 365 **********Hawaii (4)
Washington (11)
Oregon (7)
California (55)
Nevada (5)
Colorado (9)
New Mexico (5)
Montana (3) – WRONG!
North Dakota (3) – WRONG!
Minnesota (10)
Iowa (7)
Nebraska (1/5) ***
Missouri (11) –> traded for Indiana (11) ***
Wisconsin (10)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
New York (31)
Virginia (13)
New Hampshire (4)
Maine (4)
Massachusetts (12)
Rode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Connecticut (7)
New Jersey (15)
Delaware (3)
Maryland (10)
Washington D.C. (3)
Virginia (13)
North Carolina (15) ***
Florida (27)

********** MCCAIN: 173 **********

Alaska (3)
Idaho (4)
Utah (5)
Arizona (10)
Wyoming (3)
Montana (3) ***
North Dakota (3) ***
South Dakota (3)
Nebraska (4/5) ***
Kansas (6)
Oklahoma (7)
Texas (34)
Arkansas (6)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Alabama (9)
Georgia (15)
South Carolina (8)
Tennessee (11)
Kentucky (8)
Indiana (11) —> traded for Missouri (11) ***
West Virgina (5)

*** Note: North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, and Montana are so close, it is probably too early to really say for sure who won those states. As I type this, major networks won’t call Montana, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it will be a loss for McCain just from the early results. I’ll man up and call it! =o)

North Carolina (15) - Predicted for Sen. Obama - currently leaning Obama.

Sen. Obama has a 12,500 vote lead with 100% precincts reporting. Ouch! Bob Barr is going to get a few scowls for this one: He captured just over 25,000 votes! What is REALLY interesting is how many votes the Libertarian governor candidate received: 120,500. The Senate race saw 131,000 libertarian voters. If you compare the difference in total votes in between the two major parties in the Governor and Senate races: It becomes apparent that Libertarians actually tend to split their votes evenly between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. This assumes that basically everyone in N.C. who voted Republican in the senate & Governor races also voted Republican in the Presidential race. Same goes for the Democrats. This also assumes that the remaining 25,000 who voted Libertarian in the presidential race would have split the same way – or would have even voted at all. In other words, it is highly unlikely their votes would have affected the final outcome if they voted only for a Democrat or Republican. Sen. Obama still would have won. Still, this was uncomfortably close. It probably won’t be officially called for a while…

UPDATE: It looks like Sen. Obama will hold onto his lead in North Carolina, although it is dangerously close. 2,101,991 votes counted for Sen. Obama and 2,089,828 votes counted for Sen. McCain. 25,181 votes counted for Bob Barr – sure to earn Bob Barr the “spoiler” title for this race. There were 131,072 libertarian votes in the N.C. Senate race, and 120,608 in the governor’s race: It appears that only the die-hard libertarians stuck with Bob Barr on the presidential ticket, which makes me suspicious that they would have even voted for President at all if he was not on the ticket. Also, libertarians tend to pull support from both the left and right – and there is pretty good evidence within the demographic to indicate that they actually pull more from the left, so… I highly doubt those “spoiler” accusations. If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times: votes don’t “belong” to a Democratic or Republican candidate by default and any deviation from that was “stolen” from one of the main two parties. Votes belong to individuals, and they will give them to the person they think is best. If Sen. McCain failed to convince enough people in North Carolina to vote for him to win the state, it is no one’s fault but his own.

Indiana (11) - Predicted for Sen. McCain - went for Obama by a 1% margin

Sen. Obama leads by 23,500 votes with 99% precincts reporting. This is VERY close… I doubt it will be called anytime soon. Again, Bob Barr collected 29,000 votes – enough to put Sen. McCain over the top – assuming you buy into the malarkey that without Bob Barr in the race all 29,000 of those people would have voted for Sen. McCain. I don’t buy that. Many of those voters would have stayed home, and the remaining would have split between Obama & McCain. Let’s face it though: The tally there is still WAY too close, and there may be more surprises in store!

UPDATE: With 100% precincts reporting, Sen. Obama has officially been called as the winner of Indiana with a 23,000 vote lead.

Missouri (11) - Predicted for Sen. Obama - currently barely leaning McCain

Sen. McCain leads with 36,000 votes and 91% precincts reporting. The only tricky thing here is that St. Louis City has only reported 80% and Sen Obama has an 83%-16% advantage in this area. The rest of this district could give Sen. Obama slim the margin by 20,000 votes… but that still wouldn’t be enough to make up the total. This one will be too close to call for a while I think. Here’s one where people are going to call Ralph Nader a spoiler: Ralph Nader currently tallies about 16,000 votes… It is possible his tally combined with Sen. Obama’s might actually out weight Sen. McCain’s, but that’s tough to call at this moment. Very tough… This will probably be called in favor of Sen. McCain before North Carolina or Indiana are called.

NOTE: The only thing Sen. Obama has going in his favor is that Missouri has voted with the winner in every election since the civil war, save one. If Missouri breaks for Sen. McCain this election, it will be a MAJOR oddity compared to the historical trend (but perhaps not a statistical oddity).

UPDATE: This has played out EXACTLY as I predicted: St. Louis City finished reporting all its precincts, and now the spread is only 15,000 votes with Sen. McCain on top and 97% precincts reporting. I highly doubt Sen. Obama will pull it off. FiveThrityEight.com has called it for Sen. Obama, however. The guy did note that he “still hasn’t done the math” – which I did in about 30 seconds, so I’m guessing that’s why he’s making the bad call… Once he does the math, he’ll see this is super close, but highly likely to stay with Sen. McCain. I am going to have to correct something though: The Ralph Nader spoiler theory is kinda shot to hell by the fact that Bob Barr & Chuck Baldwin received a total of 19,000 votes to Nader’s 17,000.

UPDATE 2: Wow! 99% precincts reporting, this is now a dead heat! McCain only leads by 398 votes! Welcome to Missouri – the “2000 Florida” of 2008.

UPDATE 3: The current tally shows Sen. McCain in the lead with 1,442,613, and Sen. Obama with 1,436,745. This is a mere 5,868 vote lead for Sen. McCain. Interestingly enough, there are said to be a large number of provisional ballots in Missouri to be counted. Why does this matter? Most of the provisional ballots are in St. Louis City – strongly democratic, and it is also rumored that the demographic most likely to be forced to cast a provisional ballot are low income and new voters – who are also more likely to support Sen. Obama. This state could still go for Sen. Obama. I hope it does for two reasons: (1) This would put my electoral prediction only 5 off instead of 6. (2) Also, many in Missouri are going through a sort of identity crisis. Missouri has long taken pride in being a bellwether state in every election since 1904 (except 1956). I think it is kinda cool for Missouri to have that kind of status – and I’m sure plenty of Missourians who voted for John McCain are secretly hoping Sen. Obama wins the state as well, simply so they can retain their bellwether status!

Montana (3) - Predicted for Sen. Obama - went for McCain by a 3.5% margin

This was always a risky bet, and for a while I thought it was going to be a huge victory. 36% precincts reporting had Sen. Obama with a 6% lead. After 51% precincts reporting that was cut to a 1,000 vote lead. Now, with 64% precincts reporting the lead has been further cut to… oh my! He’s down by 4,300 points! This reversal is due to one fact: Metropolitan precincts were the first to report, and now all the rural precinct tallies are coming in. I think this will be reversed again as the night goes on for another simple fact: Lewis Clark county represents a significant portion of Sen. Obama’s votes and has only reported 36%. Still, Sen. Obama’s other strong counties: Missoula, & Cascade have already mostly reported all their votes. All eyes turn now to Yellowstone county. The race is in a dead heat and with only 55% precincts reporting (representing about 1/6 of Montana’s voters) a change in the race could push Sen. Obama up here as well. If it sticks with the current numbers, it will only give Sen. McCain a few hundred more votes.

UPDATE: With 72% precincts reporting, Sen. McCain now has an 8000 vote lead. Grrrrrrr… I sure hope there’s a last minute turnaround! I’d hate to be wrong on this one! (FiveThirtyEight.com actually called it for Sen. Obama earlier tonight as well).

UPDATE 2: It looks like Sen. McCain has captured this state by 16,000 votes. What a tight race. Even though Sen. Obama didn’t win, this certainly shows how poor Sen. McCain was performing. President George W. Bush won Montana with a 20% margin and didn’t even campaign here. Sen. McCain was forced to campaign here and barely pulled out a win. Incredible.

North Dakota (3) - Predicted for Sen. Obama - went for McCain by an 8% margin

As I said before: This was always my pie-in-the-sky bet. I took a gamble and I lost. I should have played it safe with those predictions and downgraded this to a “surprise state” category. I realized this later on in the week, but I had already made my predictions final! Oh well. You live, you learn.

Nebraska (1/5) (Omaha) - Predicted for Sen. McCain - currently too close to call

Nebraska and Main do not use a winner take all system. Instead, each congressional district awards an elector to the winner in those districts. The winner of the state gets the remaining two electors. This is why, anticipating a close race, Sen. Obama did some early campaigning in the congressional district occupied by Omaha (and not the whole state). Sen. McCain tried to do the same thing in Maine, but with little success. Now, it looks like this may have paid off! Although the district is currently leaning towards Sen. McCain, there is such a narrow margin – and so many provisional ballots left to be counted, it could go either way! If you read my post earlier about how demographically Democratic voters are more likely to get a provisional ballot, you’ll understand why many pundits are beginning to think this one might end up going for Sen. Obama.

******** FINAL THOUGHTS ********

So, it looks like I called Missouri & Indiana wrong… but Missouri is still SO close… It could still go either way… wow. Who would have thought? I sort of saw this scenario coming: they are each 11 electorates, so I knew I was making a “safe” swap bet… In other words, as 50/50 bets, I figured it was more likely for the candidates to each take one rather than one candidate take both.

The real risky “bets” I made were on Montana and North Dakota. It looks like I lost the bet on North Dakota – by a big margin, but I either won my bet on Montana or will have lost by just a few votes. An interesting note: most pundits were saying that McCain would lose because of the conservative support that should go to him would go to Ron Paul. With about 7,000 votes between Ron Paul and Bob Barr (the lion’s share being Rep. Paul’s) it looks like they will certainly be saying “told you so!” tomorrow morning if Sen. Obama does indeed win by a few thousand votes. Again, I don’t really agree with this crap: I’ve found that Ron Paul supporters prefer Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain – even the Ron Paul campaign has verified this – and they worked so hard to get him on the ballot – despite his requests to be removed – that I doubt any of those people would have voted for anyone else anyway…

*** UPDATED ***

McCain: Montana (3)
McCain: Missouri (11)
Obama: North Carolina (15)
Obama: Indiana (11)

365 – Obama – winner
173 – McCain

Keep in mind that this doesn’t take into account late (absentee and provisional) votes to be counted – and Missouri & Nebraska/Omaha are just SO close… I suppose it could still swing the other way. We’ll just have to wait and see.

With all the remaining uncertainty, I’m going to guess the range will end up something like this:

364-376 – Obama – winner
162-174 – McCain

So take THAT FiveThirtyEight.com! We both got Indiana wrong, I got North Dakota & Montana (barely) wrong, you and you wouldn’t call Missouri in your final prediction – but when you did, you called it for Sen. Obama! This turns out to be my same call, so we’re either going to both be right OR wrong on this one, but at least I had the balls to actually call it. Basically, I’d say we’re about even…

…except I didn’t have all those models and polling data you used to make your predictions! All I had was a couple of polls, some local paper editorials (I’ve been reading editorials in the local papers of most of the close states) and my intuition. That’s right, my intuition.

Heck yeah!

I think I see a bright future career as a campaign strategist! (*wink*) j/k

Or maybe I should think about becoming a political journalist, lol…

I still reserve the right to adjust my predictions as new information comes available, but that will probably only find its way into the “tossup” and “surprises” sections. This total electoral count for each candidate is my final prediction.

********** OBAMA: 370 **********

Hawaii (4)
Washington (11)
Oregon (7)
California (55)
Nevada (5)
Colorado (9)
New Mexico (5)
Montana (3) ***
North Dakota (3) ***
Minnesota (10)
Iowa (7)
Missouri (11) ***
Wisconsin (10)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
New York (31)
Virginia (13)
New Hampshire (4)
Maine (4)
Massachusetts (12)
Rode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Connecticut (7)
New Jersey (15)
Delaware (3)
Maryland (10)
Washington D.C. (3)
Virginia (13)
North Carolina (15) ***
Florida (27)

********** MCCAIN: 168 **********

Alaska (3)
Idaho (4)
Utah (5)
Arizona (10)
Wyoming (3)
South Dakota (3)
Nebraska (5)
Kansas (6)
Oklahoma (7)
Texas (34)
Arkansas (6)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Alabama (9)
Georgia (15)
South Carolina (8)
Tennessee (11)
Kentucky (8)
Indiana (11) ***
West Virgina (5)

********** TOSSUPS: 43 **********

Montana (3) – Called for Sen. Obama

Montana has a proven track record of reflecting the national vote rather accurately (1996 aside). The independent Constitution Party of Montana went to great lengths to get Ron Paul on the ballot despite his request to be removed. This is symptomatic of a large wing of the Republican party which dislikes Sen. McCain enough to never vote for him. My guess is they will all stay home on election day, show up for Sen. Obama, or vote 3rd Party easily throwing the state to Sen. Obama.

North Dakota (3) – Called for Sen. Obama

In general, traditionally Republican voters in the northern states are more libertarian leaning and dislike the new brand of neoconservationism McCain is represents. Also, many staunch conservatives up north don’t trust Sen. McCain’s conservative bona fides. It just so happens that in North Dakota, these voters probably represent enough votes to swing the election either way. Therefore, North Dakota will also go to Sen. Obama.

Missouri (11) – Called for Sen. Obama

Missouri has an interesting history in Presidential elections. With one exception, since 1900, they have consistently voted for the winner (Adlai Stephens in 1956? What was up with that?). As Missouri goes, so does the rest of the nation? It went very strongly in favor of President Clinton in ’92, but less so in ’96. In 2000 President Bush barely won Missouri, but despite sinking popularity, he pulled out a stronger victory in ’04. My guess is that Missouri hasn’t actually been trending more Republican – but that Democrats in Missouri have been trending more apathetic. Despite poll numbers of “likely” voters showing a dead heat in the race in Missouri, my guess is that Democrats in Missouri are finally going to wake up and go represent for Sen. Obama on Election Day.

North Carolina (15) – Called for Sen. Obama

Similar to Missouri, this race appears to be in a dead heat with Sen. Obama trending up and Sen. McCain trending down. Similar to Missouri, I think unlikely voters (and therefore un-polled) will show up in droves to support Sen. Obama. Not similar to Missouri is the issue of the unpredictable effect of black voters (who trend Democratic) turning out in greater numbers for Sen. Obama in this election. In my opinion, these factors are sure to Obama over the top in North Carolina.

Indiana (11) – Called for Sen. McCain

This was probably the hardest call for me to make. I want to think that Indiana will tell a similar story to Missouri and North Carolina. Still, the state went to President Bush in 2004 with a 20% margin. I think it is going to be uncomfortably close for the Republicans, but in the end Sen. McCain will pull it out.

TOSSUP RESULTS:
338-381 – Obama – winner
157-200 – McCain

**** LOOK FOR A SURPRISE ****

Nevada (5) – Called for Sen. Obama

Nevada is always a tossup state. There was strong disappointment over Sen. McCain getting the nomination over local favorites Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul. The Nevada Republican Convention started to elect a full slate of Ron Paul delegates to the National Convention so the neocons adjourned the meeting and held an illegal phone-in selection behind the the state delegates backs. There are a lot of pissed off Republicans in Nevada who want to see Sen. McCain go down. That, combined with the “enthusiasm for Obama” factor is why I think Nevada is a lock for Sen. Obama. Still, the McCain campaign could pull off a stunning get-out-the-vote effort and pull this one out. I highly doubt this will happen.

Louisiana (9) – Called for Sen. McCain

Similar to Montana and Nevada, many Republicans in Louisiana are very disgruntled over Sen. McCain taking the nomination (his winning the primary there was also very controversial within the state and involved several shady backroom deals). Also, considering New Orleans’ anger with the Republican party and the expectation that un-polled black voters will turn out in droves for Sen. Obama means this state could be a huge surprise this year, even though it looks as if Sen. McCain will has it safely tucked away under the great Republican Southern Belt.

Mississippi (6) – Called for Sen. McCain

If Louisiana goes for Sen. Obama, then really every southern state is on the line. Although highly unlikely, who knows? Stranger things have happened.

Georgia (15) – Called for Sen. McCain

Same story here as in Louisiana and Mississippi, although I think this is more than Mississippi to wind up surprising pollsters (although less likely than Nevada).

West Virgina (5) – Called for Sen. McCain

I tend to think that West Virginia will remain a strongly Republican state for a very long time, but this state is somewhat of a mystery to me. For a brief while, some pollsters were calling it for Sen. Obama or indicating that he was surprisingly close. Then, as quickly as that news came it disappeared, and West Virginia was polling very favorably for Sen. McCain again. Is there something else going on here with a mass of “considered unlikely” voters waiting in the wings to show up for Sen. Obama on election day? Who knows? This election may have many surprises in store for us.

******* WHAT ABOUT…? *******

Florida (27) – Called for Sen. Obama

Every since the 2000 election, all eyes will be on Florida for a very time. Fortunately, it will report its results rather early, and I’m pretty sure these results will be in favor of Sen. Obama. I tend to think Florida is Republican leaning, although polls indicate Sen. Obama is picking up momentum and pulling away here. The key is that the organization of the Obama campaign is unrivaled and their pockets are deep. They’re dumping massive amounts of cash into Florida and will have an amazing get-out-the-vote drive on Election Day, spearheaded by volunteers from all over the nation. Pollsters say this state is close. I say, on election day, polls don’t mean a thing: all that counts is who actually shows up, and I’m betting the Obama campaign will have every last Obama supporter in a voting booth before the day is over.

Ohio (20) – Called for Sen. Obama

This is almost the exact same story as Florida. Obama is pulling away in the polls. The Obama campaign is making this a central front. This Obama campaign has more money, is better organized, and far more effective than the McCain campaign and therefore will execute a better get-out-the-vote drive. And finally, polls generally only indicate how “likely” voters will vote. Sen. Obama will surly pull in more “unlikely” voters than Sen. McCain because of the enthusiasm factor. Just like Florida, I think this one will be obvious before you go to bed on Election Night, and I think it will be bright blue.

Pennsylvania (21) – Called for Sen. Obama

The McCain campaign seems to think this is the key state that will lead them to victory. However, ever since capturing a polling lead in May, Sen. Obama has been consistently polling further and further ahead of Sen. McCain here – most recently with a 10%+ lead. I doubt the win will be that big, but I do think the McCain campaign is dreaming on this one.

******** A FINAL WORD ********

Even if Sen. Obama loses all of his tossup states (32 electorates), and Nevada (5), Ohio (20), and Florida (27), this still leaves him with a lead of

286 – Obama – winner
252 – McCain

Now, let us suppose that the McCain campaign pulls out a miracle win in Pennsylvania (21) as well. This is the ONLY scenario through which Sen. McCain can defeat Sen. Obama, and it will only be with a narrow margin of victory:

273 – McCain – winner
265 – Obama

However, in this scenario, if Nevada (5) still comes through for Sen. Obama, Sen. Obama will win the election. Remember, Mitt Romney won Nevada caucus and even Ron Paul finished well ahead of Sen. McCain. Even though the nomination was a lock for Sen. McCain Nevada went on to almost elected an entire slate of Ron Paul delegates to the national convention and then were shut out by some very shady proceedings which even the National Republican Party said were illegal… I’m almost certain that plenty of Nevada Republicans can’t stand Sen. McCain and therefore Nevada will go to Sen. Obama.

270 – Obama – winner
268 – McCain

If any state will decide the election this time around, it won’t Florida, it won’t be Ohio, and it won’t even be Pennsylvania… it will be Nevada. If Nevada goes to Sen. Obama, all the rest of the tossup states don’t even matter.

The statement, “even though you’re ___ and I’m ___” reveals a subtle assumption about the world and how we have been taught to expect it to work. If someone has a definable difference from you (in this case ethnicity and cultural background), then it is expected and assumed that there will be difficulties in communication and understanding.

Now, I’ll be the first to trumpet the fact that societies MUST be on watch for breakdowns in communication and the lack of understanding between people. These things must be recognized and corrected, and often it IS a cultural or simple “definable” difference that leads to misunderstandings. However, arriving at the blatant expectation that this is the norm is dangerous and does more harm than good – even if that assumption is based on past experiences and is merely a rational reaction to the patterns of the world.

Pointing to the Asian/white comparison in particular, I have noticed a very disturbing trend. This is not limited to the Asian community at all, but since this is the one with which I have more first hand experience, I’ll use it as an example. For one thing there is a very subtle “us in contrast to them” mentality. This is perfectly natural when forging a minority group or community identity, but it can lead to a community that becomes inwardly focused and sees everyone outside of their defined qualities as being outside of their experience, thus making it very difficult to understand each other. Not only does this assumption lead to more misunderstanding than there probably would be in the first place, but it also yields some pretty ridiculous distinguishments that have little to do with reality.

Often I hear the phrase, “Oh, that’s so Asian!” spoken among Asians in reference to something they do which they have noticed “all the other Asians in their community” also do. From an outsider’s perspective, I have to laugh to myself because there is absolutely NOTHING so Asian about whatever it is they’re talking about, but they have the blinders on so tight they can’t recognize their own common bonds with “humanity,” other cultures, and people with different backgrounds. I think to myself, “No, that’s so HUMAN.” Of course, speaking this kind of generalization has been received with much argumentation and protest – as if I was threatening the very foundation of bedrock qualities which some Asians have tied their entire identity up in.

Wouldn’t it be a scandal indeed if one of my Asian friends who struggled being comfortable being Asian in “a white man’s world” and struggled carving out an identity for himself found out that many of the things he clung to as being “so Asian” and integral to his Asian identity were not specifically Asian at all. Rather, these were qualities which he shared with humanity as whole, or simply with certain pockets of society. These “pockets” may have less simple group definitions such as black, white, Asian, and Latino – but more nuanced ones such as “traditional conservative valued” or “lower middle class” or “suburban teen from artistically and culturally attuned family background.”

Granted, even the boundaries of these groups are further blurred across the many domains to which we find ourselves belonging – making the same mistakes of mischaracterized definitions just as likely within these so-called “definable groups” as they are in the more simple ones. I remember back to my high school year when people were divided into groups such as “jocks” “preps” “grunge” “skater” “goth” “artists” “band geeks” and so on and so forth… By the time most of us made it through out college years we discovered that there was a little bit of every group in each of us, but far be it from me to explain to a high school kid that they might really have 95% in common with someone from a difference social group and only 5% different when they think those numbers are reversed or non-existent at all.

It seems to me that as we become adults, we simply have exchanged one group myth for another, and by insisting that we belong to a certain group or community we find ourselves creating non-existent distinguishing characteristics for ourselves and using them as tools to separate ourselves and excuses for being unable to communicate or understand each other. In reality, I believe that we probably are able to understand each other a lot better than we think, and empathy to the individual can go a lot further than we expect. In other words, even though, as individuals we have many things different, it shouldn’t be a surprise to me that another human has the ability to reach outside of his own personal experience and empathies with me even though he’s him and I’m me – group definitions aside.

Once group definitions are applied, the notion that there should even be a qualifying “even though you’re ___ and I’m ___” remark is often fallacious and based in a complete lack of understanding that most of the qualities we use to separate ourselves categorically from other humans are really shared cross-categorically with other humans. Of course, this isn’t expressed in the, “even though you’re a major extrovert and I’m a major introvert” sort of way which would be more proper – it is generalized into, “even though you’re white and I’m Asian” – revealing a possible subtle association of being naturally extroverted with being white and being introverted with being Asian – a complete falsehood along ethnic lines, but an easy one to settle on since the examples of such extremes abound in obvious quantities. Some people may be surprised to find that there are extremely introverted people from all cultural backgrounds – and extremely extroverted people among groups which are typified as being introverted.

To those of you who may find themselves easily falling into the trap of “even though you’re ___ and I’m ___” thinking, I challenge you to consider the following: Life is not so simple that something as basic as ethnic and cultural background differences can be used as a baseline for excluding others from being able to “understand” you. On the other hand, life is not so complex that understanding and communication requires any significant amount of commonality in experience and disposition between two other people.

In my own experience as a “middleclass, Christian straight white male suburban Midwesterner” (MCCSWMSM) I have found that I can often relate better to my rich and poor friends than those in the same income tax bracket as myself. I often relate better to my atheist and Muslim friends than other Christians, my gay friends than straight friends, my black and Asian friends than my white counterparts, my female friends than my male friends, and my friends from the coasts (and especially overseas) rather than my fellow Midwesterners. What is so special about me that allows me to transcend traditional boundaries of division and misunderstanding? Is there something about my uniquely individual experience that has caused me to be a social chameleon, blending in where I’m not supposed to have the natural camouflage?

I will admit that my experiences in life have been “uniquely” individual, but the real truth is there’s nothing UNIQUE about that phenomena at all! There’s nothing unique or special about me that allows me to “transcend.” Once we start looking outside our traditional groupings it is refreshing to find that those groupings might only be based on 2% of our actual personal makeup and the other 98% is free fodder for indentifying with and understanding our fellow humans who lie outside our group.

I would suggest that the reason I have found that I can understand and relate to individuals outside my “groups” is because everyone is likely to have more in common with humans as a whole than the people crammed into their categorical group. Sure, if all we do is focus on the things that make us different from “them” and similar to “us” we’ll come to the distorted conclusion that we have more in common with us than them. We may also find ourselves creating false realities that don’t strictly differentiate us from them. On the other hand, even though we may find that we differ drastically from someone else, the power of human empathy to transcend differences and yield understanding and communication may actually surprise.

I’m no saint, and I find myself playing an inner monologue where I calmly explain to myself that the reason I don’t relate to some person as well as I would like is because of superficial differences such as our economic or cultural background, or belonging to a certain religious or interest group (such as sports or fine arts). It is a challenge to constantly remind myself that this is a false construct and an excuse to quit trying. It is tempting to “turn off” my empathy mechanism and rely on these false constructs to compound the already difficult task of relating to someone who has glaring differences. Truth be told, if I can see beyond these false constructs and focus on what I have in common with my fellow humans and make the effort to exercise and employ my natural born empathy, I will find that there are few people who fall beyond the grasp of understanding or being understood by me.

I’m not making the argument that there aren’t things which do help define cultures or that those things don’t carry any significant value in and of themselves. I’m simply saying that in my experience, I have observed that people have a tendency to lump far too many human characteristics together as being correlated with their culture than they actually are. In addition, often we rely too much on commonality as a bridge to understanding and are surprised when empathy transcends our differences.

My suggestion is that if we can identify and free ourselves from the misdefinitions of our falsely constructed groupings it will go a long way towards uniting us and teaching us that we really are all under the same sun, going through the same difficult “human experience” and suffering, rejoicing, mourning, and loving in the same basic human fashion. And sometimes, that is all we need to know to find a little empathy and understanding with our fellow humankind.

More reading: You Are Not So Smart: The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight