Presidential Candidates Should Debate Science ... Thus Sayeth Religious People

Most people that I know are absolutely disgusted by politicians. No matter what a person's political affiliation, if you're an intelligent person then you want decisions to be based on a firm understanding of the reality of the situation. There may be perfectly valid disagreements about how best to address the problems within this reality, of course, but ultimately no one wants decisions to be made on a faulty understanding of reality.

And how do we understand reality? Well, the most well-established and consistent method for understanding the working of reality is science.

Why is this so? Basically it is because science (and, so far as I know, only science) has built into it a systematic method to continually question its base assumptions, to really get at the fundamental truths about how reality functions.?Sean Carroll put this eloquently in a recent YouTube video, when he describes skepticism:

Scientists are taught that we should be our own theories' harshest critics. Scientists spend all of their time trying to disprove their favorite ideas. This is a remarkable way of doing things that is a little bit counter-intuitive, but helps us resist the allure of wishful thinking.

Unfortunately, virtually no politicians approach things this way. Political thinking typically starts with a conviction and then proceeds to amass evidence that supports that conviction ... and disregards evidence that conflicts with their conviction.

However, when really considering the policies that we want implemented, people believe that scientific reality is a fairly good thing to consider. Some science enthusiasts believe that religion and religious people are inherently anti-scientific, but a recent poll indicates that this isn't really the case. Even people who self-identify as religious provide a strong indication that they want a scientific-based debate between presidential candidates.

In fact, a science debate came in third among presidential debate themes, right behind economy/taxes and foreign policy/national security, but well ahead of themes such as faith/values or the environment.

Do you believe that there should be a Science Debate as part of the 2012 presidential election, focusing on science-themed areas such as innovation, healthcare, and energy policy? Is this a realistic proposition, or will both parties run from such an enterprise? Offer your thoughts in the comments below.

Related Articles:

View the original article here

Why Healthy People Need Flu Vaccines

You're young, you're healthy, your kids are young and healthy. Even if you would get the flu, you're strong enough to fight it. Hey! You might even get to take a few days off from work! So why do you need a flu shot?

In more recent years, infectious diseases experts have expanded their recommendations about who needs a flu shot, and that may well include you and your children. What we don’t realize is that by ignoring their advice, we may actually cause someone else, even a loved one, to get sick enough to die from influenza.

Here's how:

Most of us believe we get immunized to protect ourselves from illness. But that’s only part of the reason. Just as important is the additional protection that comes from everyone around us being vaccinated, too. As long as we have all received the vaccine, then the germ can’t gain a foothold to make us sick.

Doctors and public health officials call this “herd immunity.” Everyone in the population who has been immunized is protected not just by getting the vaccine themselves, but by the fact that those who they come in contact with have been immunized, too.

Those who are most at risk of dying from influenza are infants, older adults and those with weakened immune systems. They aren't strong or healthy enough to combat the germs. So, in past years, most of those who were considered at-risk, were vaccinated against the flu. Further, healthcare workers who treated those populations would be immunized, too.

Each year, despite that protection, thousands would get sick and die from the flu anyway.

It didn’t take long to figure out that those who died because they were too weak to fight the flu, despite the fact they had been immunized, had been exposed to flu by other, unvaccinated members of their “herd."

Those who were not vaccinated could be carriers, even when they had no symptoms or never got sick. Adult children, grandchildren, caregivers, siblings, friends and neighbors, all who thought they were healthy, were unintentionally passing on flu germs and causing those deaths.

As a result, flu immunization recommendations have now expanded. As of Fall 2008, according to the CDC, they include: Children aged 6 months up to their 19th birthday Pregnant women People 50 years of age and older People of any age with certain chronic medical conditions such as spinal cord injury, liver disease, kidney disease, heart disease, HIV, COPD or others People who live in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities People who live with or care for those at high risk for complications from flu, including: Health care workers Household contacts of persons at high risk for complications from the flu Household contacts and out of home caregivers of children less than 6 months of age (these children are too young to be vaccinated)

The CDC also provides a list of people who should not receive the flu vaccine until they get the go-ahead from their physicians.

Now that you understand why it's important for all of us to protect not just ourselves, but our loved ones, too, I hope you'll take the steps needed to get your flu shots, and to make sure your children have been immunized, too.

The flu vaccine is simple, quick and inexpensive. Call your doctor or attend a flu clinic. Depending on your age or other factors, you may be given a shot, or you may be eligible to use the easily inhaled flu mist.

Sources:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/2008-09_flu_qa.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm

View the original article here

Why Healthy People Need Flu Vaccines

You're young, you're healthy, your kids are young and healthy. Even if you would get the flu, you're strong enough to fight it. Hey! You might even get to take a few days off from work! So why do you need a flu shot?

In more recent years, infectious diseases experts have expanded their recommendations about who needs a flu shot, and that may well include you and your children. What we don’t realize is that by ignoring their advice, we may actually cause someone else, even a loved one, to get sick enough to die from influenza.

Here's how:

Most of us believe we get immunized to protect ourselves from illness. But that’s only part of the reason. Just as important is the additional protection that comes from everyone around us being vaccinated, too. As long as we have all received the vaccine, then the germ can’t gain a foothold to make us sick.

Doctors and public health officials call this “herd immunity.” Everyone in the population who has been immunized is protected not just by getting the vaccine themselves, but by the fact that those who they come in contact with have been immunized, too.

Those who are most at risk of dying from influenza are infants, older adults and those with weakened immune systems. They aren't strong or healthy enough to combat the germs. So, in past years, most of those who were considered at-risk, were vaccinated against the flu. Further, healthcare workers who treated those populations would be immunized, too.

Each year, despite that protection, thousands would get sick and die from the flu anyway.

It didn’t take long to figure out that those who died because they were too weak to fight the flu, despite the fact they had been immunized, had been exposed to flu by other, unvaccinated members of their “herd."

Those who were not vaccinated could be carriers, even when they had no symptoms or never got sick. Adult children, grandchildren, caregivers, siblings, friends and neighbors, all who thought they were healthy, were unintentionally passing on flu germs and causing those deaths.

As a result, flu immunization recommendations have now expanded. As of Fall 2008, according to the CDC, they include: Children aged 6 months up to their 19th birthday Pregnant women People 50 years of age and older People of any age with certain chronic medical conditions such as spinal cord injury, liver disease, kidney disease, heart disease, HIV, COPD or others People who live in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities People who live with or care for those at high risk for complications from flu, including: Health care workers Household contacts of persons at high risk for complications from the flu Household contacts and out of home caregivers of children less than 6 months of age (these children are too young to be vaccinated)

The CDC also provides a list of people who should not receive the flu vaccine until they get the go-ahead from their physicians.

Now that you understand why it's important for all of us to protect not just ourselves, but our loved ones, too, I hope you'll take the steps needed to get your flu shots, and to make sure your children have been immunized, too.

The flu vaccine is simple, quick and inexpensive. Call your doctor or attend a flu clinic. Depending on your age or other factors, you may be given a shot, or you may be eligible to use the easily inhaled flu mist.

Sources:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/2008-09_flu_qa.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm

View the original article here

People Will Virtually Kill One to Save Five

It’s a moral and ethical problem that has been studied before: you see a train heading towards five hikers and you have the power to save them. Just pull a switch to make the train swerve out of the way on another track. BUT you’ll kill another hiker who won’t see the train coming at all. What do you do? Intervene? Or no?

Variations on this have vexed philosophers (and their students) for decades. Carlos David Navarrete, an evolutionary psychologist at Michigan State University, decided to apply a little technology to the problem.

BLOG: Suicide by Roller Coaster

He created a 3D, virtual environment in which subjects would experience the actual situation. Each subject was given a joystick that would throw the (virtual) switch, thus saving five people by sacrificing one. To monitor their emotional states, he attached sensors to the subjects’ fingertips. This is the first time anyone has measured a “physical” response to the ethical dilemma.

The result itself wasn’t that surprising: of the 147 participants, 133 (90.5 percent) pulled the switch to divert the train, resulting in the death of the one person. Fourteen participants allowed the train to kill the five. Eleven participants did not pull the switch at all, while three pulled the switch but then returned it to its original position. All this is consistent with earlier studies that didn’t use virtual reality.

PHOTOS: The Darkest Side of Science

The new data shows, however, that participants who did not pull the switch were more emotionally aroused. Nobody knows why that is. It may be because people “freeze up” during highly anxious moments, such as when soldiers fail to use their weapons in battle, Navarrete said in a press release.

For Navarette, the interesting thing was that while most people made the utilitarian choice -– sacrificing one to save many –- humans have to overcome a natural aversion to hurting other people. Rationalizing the choice (weighing the costs and benefits) can help people overcome that to make tough decisions like that. But in some cases, a person can get so anxious that they can’t make a decision at all, or make the wrong one.

Image / Video: Michigan State University

View the original article here