"FAIL"

I was all set to write a blog post about the expression 'fail' (as in 'epic fail') creeping into the mainstream, when I found out that Christopher Beam already did a much better job of it than I would have on Slate back in October.  It's a great read and you should check it out.

It's kind of like your Dad trying to work "rad" into a conversation though when conservative bloggers and summer tv previews co-opt an expression originating amongst forum-trolling gamers.

Like everything supposedly cool that enters into the mainstream, there's a certain element of "it was cool until you started doing it" here.  Shit, and in fact I guess I'm pretty uncool for coming late to the party in highlighting this little bit of lexicon.  But I swear, I knew about it back in '04.

Now my question is, is there a term for something being no longer cool because it has hit the mainstream?  I guess you could interpret that as 'Jumping the Shark' in a more universal sense.  But I'd rather there be a german word like shadenfreude that means that exact thing.  I'll have to look around for that one.

Hit Pieces and the Scientific Method

On the train today I read this over somebody's shoulder (sorry man) and it pissed me off.

http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/05/01/01/3432-82/index.xml

Not just because it is really crazy to argue that climate change isn't happening, or that human activity doesn't have an effect on the global environment, but because I hate to see the word "skeptic" used against science and doubt used to bolster ignorance.

The article and the argument in general is a hit piece against science.  It hinges on the conceit that any two arguments should be given equal consideration simply because equality is good, irrespective of the quality of the two positions.  It likewise misrepresents the place of skepticism and doubt in scientific inquiry.  The same way creationists misconstrue the meaning of the word "theory" in the context of the scientific method, here Mr. Wood drops the loaded words "skeptic" and "believer" into the discussion as the only qualitative arguments on the table.  We are left with no actual data with which to make a judgment, only our conceptions of the relative value of arguments generally made by "skeptics" and "believers".  This type of argumentation is patently disingenous and were Mr. Wood a real and honest journalist, he would be ashamed.

The misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the scientific method in polemic writing is one of my biggest pet peeves.  Doing so intentionally in order to sow doubt and ignorance in the public is a travesty of logic and scientific reasoning.  Real science is the pursuit of truth, not the obfuscation of it.