Brookings Science ‘Expert’ Doesn’t Understand Basic Science

[RoyGBiv]

Gregg Easterbrook, a writer employed as a science expert by a prominent Washington think tank, evidently doesn’t understand basic science. Easterbrook, a prolific writer and editor for The New Republic, Atlantic Monthly, the Washington Monthy, and NFL.com, is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, whose mission is to “conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations” for general prosperity and democracy. Easterbrook’s Brookings profile claims expertise in a remarkable swath of knowledge — environmental policy, global warming, science, space policy, “well-being” research, Christian theology, and professional sports — evidently based on his work as a journalist after receiving degrees in political science and journalism.

...

<Easterbrook writing:>A few columns ago, I speculated that even if there is never any way to exceed or circumvent the light-speed barrier, relatively nearby planets might still fight by hurling nuclear bombs at each other at 99 percent of light speed ...

More, including his interesting calculation of kinetic energy

[hobbit709]

1. RW thinking(?) doesn't include science or real mathematics.

[zbdent]

2. it's not science when your conclusion can only be made

with divine intervention ...

[mn9driver]

3. Science Fiction is a favorite genre of RWers

Especially the earlier work of folks like Heinlein and Dickson. In their imagination, they inhabit these worlds where things are black and white, and every problem can be fixed with virtue, determination and fake science; and then they get the girl and live happily ever after.

Not all sci-fi fans are this way, but they make up a significant subset of the base. Try having a political discussion at a sci-fi convention and you'll get some very interesting-and pathetic-conversations.

[Greyskye]

4. And it's also a favorite genre of Liberals & Progressives

Notedly that of modern science fiction, where complex themes of environmentalism, politics, religion, and various social issues are at the crux of the themes. David Brin, Kim Stanley Robinson, Charles DeLint and Neal Stephenson come to mind off the top of my head.

I often attended SF conventions some 30 or so years ago - mostly Westercon's and Worldcon's, along with a couple decent local cons. At the time, I remember there being a loud Libertarian minority, and an even smaller hawkish RW/militaristic faction who were quite fond of the authors you mention. But even those groups tended to be at least moderately socially progressive. Hell, I was a huge Heinlein fan as a teenager - mostly of his more 'liberal' works, such as Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, etc. Come to think of it, a major theme in a number of Heinlein's books was that of moral relativity - that's about as far from 'black and white' judgments as you can get.

The SF&F community is way too big to be broad-brushed as a 'favorite genre of the right wing'. From my experience, the vast majority of RWers don't read for enjoyment, period.

[mn9driver]

5. Sheesh.

Evaluate the validity of the following series of statements:

True or False:
"1 is a favorite number of A" and
"1 is a favorite number of B" therefore
"A equals B"

True or false:
"A is a subset of 1" therefore
"Most 1 are A's"

That's all the time I have for this today.

[Greyskye]

6. Back at 'ya

You made some unsupported statements, I gave some counterexamples based on my experience.

[Bill McBlueState]

23. It's true, Easterbrook is pretty clueless about science

This isn't a great example of his ineptitude, though.

What bothers me is that he has no concept of how science works. He clearly thinks of astronomy as just a guessing game where whoever can come up with the coolest theory wins. So you thinks gamma ray bursts are the sign of massive weaponry? Okay, then figure out how to tell whether this is the case.

[Bill McBlueState]

24. oops, that was supposed to be a response to the OP n/t

[RoyGBiv]

25. I read it anyway. ..

:-)

I pretty much agree.

[PVnRT]

22. Tell them Heinlein supported Upton Sinclair for governor of California

If they know who Sinclair is, that will blow their mind.

[TZ]

7. Science "specialists" in journalism in other fields...

You know what the scientific background is for a lot of these types? A high school chemistry class..Told to me by a PhD, Ms, biochemist going to law school for a patent degree in a class for lawyers specializing in science...
BTW, she had a hard time getting a job because she had too much scientific knowledge and might "bore the jury". Such is society today.

[Johonny]

8. If you read his sports column

he knows a lot about cheerleaders in the NFL and not much else.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. I think the author is over-exaggerating the omission of relativistic effects.

The point is that anything accelerated to 99% SoL is going to be a hell of a bomb, even ignoring relativity.

[RoyGBiv]

10. Uh huh ...

Personally, I think part of his point is that he's truly in love with watching himself write and goes off on pointless and factually incorrect ramblings such as this rather frequently.

Here's the full article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3737612&type=story

[anigbrowl]

15. And I thought I had problems with ADD and lack of focus. Clearly I should be at the Brookings Inst.

Is this what passes for intellectualism among ESPN fans? I wish you hadn't shown me that.

[RoyGBiv]

16. Apparently ...

Oddly enough, I ran across this on an economics blog (Brad DeLong) and was attracted to it a lot like a person is attracted to watching a train wreck.

The further I dug, the worse it got.

It'd be one thing if he were just some random ESPN idiot (and he is a random ESPN idiot), but the guy publishes in the New Republic and Atlantic Monthly for crying out loud ... this same kind of crap.

I did get the impression he thinks he's HST.

In any case, sorry. I know it's disturbing. Sometimes a person has to share the pain.

[anigbrowl]

17. I am suing you for the 3 IQ points I lost all the same.

I'll take payment in small unmarked bills.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Given the state of the economy ...

That's cheap.

I'll print them tomorrow. Hell, the stamp's probably worth more.

[anigbrowl]

19. Cool. Send to: G. W. Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...

[caraher]

20. HST?

He thinks he's the Hubble Space Telescope? Hunter S. Thompson?

Please excuse my cluelessness... what does "HST" mean here?

[RoyGBiv]

21. Hunter S. Thompson ...

Ostensibly a sports writer who would have been mostly unknown had that been all he did ...

Some journalists can get away with this sort of thing. Most can't.

[Bill McBlueState]

27. I'm sort of a fan of Easterbrook's football writing

He's made some excellent points about how certain aspects of football "common sense" are way too conservative. That teams should go for it on fourth down way more often, for example. It's actually refreshing, given the blind adherence to the status quo you see in most sports writing.

But when he writes about non-football topics, he rambles, is arrogant, and is often just plain wrong. And he hasn't said much of anything *new* about football strategy in a couple years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. You'd think this was about something serious, rather than talking obvious crap about sci-fi

So he didn't bother to correct the email he got from a reader? Big deal. It's not as if he was proposing a NASA mission, is it?

[RoyGBiv]

12. He's an idiot?

And he's passed off as a science (and everything else it seems) expert?

Always?

And this is but one example?

Perhaps?

OnEdit: Linked to the wrong article ... the *one* where Easterbrook guessed something correctly. Emphasis on guess.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/10/13/the-long-bomb/

The guy thinks he's HST, only smarter. He's wrong on both counts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. What are you concerned about? That an undergraduate will reference ESPN when working out sub-atomic

particle kinetic energies?

He copied, without correcting, a reader's incorrect calculation in a non-serious aside about interplanetary warfare.

I note that the first blog to pick it up titled the entry "Pointless Easterbrook baiting". Yes, pointless and pedantic. Pull him up for mistakes that matter, not the jokes in a football column.

[RoyGBiv]

14. Never mind ...

[krispos42]

26. Without even reading the article...

...I can smell the bullshit.


The kinetic energy of the mass of the bomb hitting a planet would be far greater than the explosion from nuclear fission or fusion.


At .99c, you don't need explosives!





This guy needs to read more Niven.