The Vast Scientific Conspiracy

As with so many other subjects on which science treads boldly, I am finding it irks me greatly when ignorant individuals presume to lecture scientists on the vast conspiracy against their championed theory which they have "researched extensively". Please understand that I use the word "ignorant" in this vein (from Merriam Webster): "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified". However, it seems that having "letters after your name" makes you an instantaneous target for individuals seeking an argument about their pet scientific issue. Given that I am encountering this type of discussion more and more frequently as a professor, allow me to clarify a few things that will elicit irritation (hopefully well-concealed due to common courtesy) and instant mental dismissal:

1. Do not claim to have "extensively researched" your issue if you haven't read a large swath of the evidence produced by the opposing viewpoint. Reading from the hymnbook with the choir does not make you an expert on the unwashed heathen masses in the pews.
2. If you do not understand the guiding principles behind scientific investigation, do not pretend to understand why or why not some experiments were done well or done poorly.
3. If you do not know the difference between multiple statistical formulas and why one would be appropriate over another, do not state that you know the statistics are "flawed".
4. Do not assume that your hypothesis is correct. If you are unable or unwilling to accept that the data presented to you may give you a result that is different from the one you wanted, then don't enter the discussion.
5. If you do not have a comprehensive education to provide you with sufficient underpinnings to analyze the function of a biological system, then do not presume you know more than individuals who have studied the biological system for decades.
6. Do not assume that just because someone has received an advanced degree, they are part of the "system" and will not ever listen to what you say.
7. DO consider your sources. Citations from peer-reviewed journals of high repute will advance your cause greatly, because the peer review process (while flawed) does provide a significant countermeasure to someone publishing whatever they threw together. Citations from a highly subject-specific society's own journal are less likely to aid you, and might make you look ignorant (depending on the source).
8. Please remember that scientists make their careers by receiving grant money on hot subjects. If your personal scientific topic involves a hot subject, you can bet there are plenty of studies being done on it, because scientists who discover something new have discovered a career-making source of fame & steady grant money. If there is nothing new being discovered, i.e. running against the dominant paradigm/theory, see #4.
9. Do not use vituperative or emotive language in your discussion. It merely demeans your argument. Ugly or demeaning language closes minds, it doesn't open them.
10. Respect the other person's opinion, as they will hopefully respect yours.
11. Realize that data interpretation is just that, interpretation. If you have the raw data and can prove a different conclusion, great! Publish it! Otherwise, perhaps it is wise to remember that the authors of scientific papers are the world's leading experts on their own data, and respect that and subsequently their opinions of that data.
12. If you are really convinced that there is a vast conspiracy on your topic of scientific interest, may I suggest you go become a scientist yourself and prove them wrong? Don't hold it against me (or any other scientist for that matter), however, if along the way you suddenly reverse your opinion in the course of your education.

Ugh. I really must stop offering to be a strawman for folks with agendas. It's quite depressing.

Illegal Immigration

Look, I am not going to bore you with personal tales about dealing with legal immigration in the U.S. I'm just going to say flat out that I do not have sympathy for illegal immigrants. Period. I know what my family has personally gone through to do things the LEGAL WAY, and it cost us a lot of money, both in actual Ouch check-writing moments, as well as in many hours spent poring over documentation, standing in line at the INS office, going to the immigration attorney's office, etc.

The fact is, if my family member had to go through the process of becoming a legal permanent resident alien (aka green card holder) again today, it would cost us $3500+ in fees alone from start to finish (not including immigration attorney costs, or duplicating costs for paperwork, or doctor's fees for shots or photo fees, etc).

An illegal immigrant pays none of that, unless of course s/he was in the country before 1986. Then s/he can pay $1400+ and become a permanent resident alien. If the illegal immigrant entered the country after 1986, it becomes far more complicated, expensive, and fraught to gain legal residency (and it's not necessarily possible). If said illegal immigrant has American children, they could possibly petition for residency on the basis of those children.

Anyhow, I am going into the big, tall weeds of the U.S. government's rules & regulations, and I don't want to do that. I just want to point out that just because someone has a good *reason* for doing something (like entering this country illegally), does not make it *right* for them to do so, morally or legally. And said person should be prepared to pay the consequences for that wrong action, whenever the bill (as it were) may come due. It really doesn't matter if that person has spent years being a good productive citizen since that wrong action. It doesn't matter if they have bought a house, been a community volunteer, paid their bills on time, not gotten into trouble with the law, raised decent upstanding kids. That person is still accountable for breaking the law.

It reminds me of those news stories you hear about with some grandma who was part of some crazy '70s heist or crime, and who went underground and remained hidden for three decades. She got married, had kids & grandkids, was a model citizen. And then the proverbial knock at the door, and she is arrested for that criminal action she did three decades before. I don't hear people saying, "Oh, she's been good since then...they should just let her go." The prevailing conversation you hear is, "Well, she knew she did wrong," or "She did something wrong and she still needs to pay her debt to society." Likewise Roman Polansky doesn't get a pass on his crime of decades ago--the feds still want to see him in court just as much now as they ever did.

So I want to ask you, how is it any different if someone entered this country illegally? They committed a crime. It doesn't matter how long ago they did so. In the intervening years they have benefited from this country's opportunities and infrastructure. Maybe they helped pay for it through taxes (even payroll taxes, if they used a fraudulent Social Security number...another crime, btw), or maybe they didn't. But the fact remains that they broke our laws to get here, they benefited from opportunities that arguably could otherwise have been open to American citizens or legal immigrants. Shouldn't they have to pay for that crime? At a minimum, if they are caught, shouldn't they be forced to return to their home country? How is it okay to send a grandma back to jail, with hope of parole in 2-3 years with good behavior, for a bank robbery committed thirty years ago, but it's not okay to at a minimum send people home who came here illegally thirty years ago (ok, 23 years ago, given the '86 amnesty)? I don't understand the logic.

I don't want to hear a bunch of B.S. about "well Americans didn't want those jobs". How do we know that? If those illegal immigrants weren't here, if the borders were enforced and people who still managed to sneak in were sent home as soon as they were found, I bet any deficiencies in the work force that would require more legal immigration would be remedied pretty quickly. But at the end of the day, we cannot allow folks to flaunt our laws. Where does it end? It's okay with immigration, but not okay for bank robbery suspects...oh and murderers, or identity thieves...unless they were using a Social Security number to be here on payrolls as illegals, then that's okay? You see the problem? How do you differentiate? And folks, we can't take them all. We just don't have the resources. Ask the folks in Arizona how expensive it is to offer services to folks who don't pay for them with taxes (hello AZ immigration law!). You see why people are demanding the federal government enforce its own laws regarding immigration?

And frankly, as someone who jumped through all the expensive, tedious, and maddening hoops with legal immigration, I'm tired of hearing about how the illegal immigrants "deserve" a break. I don't get a free pass from breaking the law, any law--and neither should anybody else. The End.