As you might suppose, I’m not a proponent of rejecting science or clinical trials, per se. Rather, I’m a critic of how people trust them broadly, while remaining ignorant of common systematic faults in how they are used. Science has become a kind of secular religion, and just as dangerous to the promotion of knowledge in society.

John Ioannidis’s work provides one good point of reference for why we all need a horse-pill sized dose of skepticism about studies we come across. Another good one is Judith Curry’s research on false positives.

I’ve seen too clearly how rubbery the statistics and claims can be in clinical trials, all while parading under the banner of science.

Maybe I’m a lover of what clinical trials will be able to tell us in thirty years. But today I mostly see flabby science, and that’s before the media gets hold of it, and long before the average non-scientist tries to make sense of what they heard in the media.

Conducting strong studies in the healthcare field often requires a ton of manpower and money, which means so much of the current hardcore research is dominated by pharmaceutical companies and government grants, each driving their own dump-truck of smelly biases and agendas.

Top domain experts are in the best position to reliably discern what is known, what is unknown, and what is still in that gray area between the two. Yet these same experts commonly promote ideas later shown to be bunk. That should be more than a little disconcerting to anyone who places a lot of confidence in the science available to us today.

My view is that the clinical trial, as a methodology of applying reason rigorously, is still in its teenage years if not its infancy. So what do I do in the interim? Enjoy the game. Scoff at things that don’t seem to pass the smell test, scientifically or philosophically.

And I’m irreverent toward anything that seems like a religious trust in science, and I am more inclined to trust people who show a healthy skepticism about the ways science is conducted and who recognize just how little we truly know about anything within about 90 yards of the leading edge of science.

Did I mention some people treat science like religion? “But there are STUDIES…” Uh-huh.

To me lately clinical trials often seem more like a sport than a science. I’m no longer in a league, so instead I root for my team, mock the opposition, and enjoy the show.

I’m glad you’re doing the research you do, and are as aware as you are of the pitfalls in the process. I look forward to seeing where you go with it! Now, where’s my popcorn….

Honoring “The Chosin Few” in the Korean War from 27 November 1950 on into December 1950. The battle of Chosin Reservoir. It was intensely brutal combat in temperatures sometimes down to minus-35 degrees in the mountains. A frozen Hell.

Honored warriors there were from the US Marines, the US Army, the Republic of Korea (the “ROKs,” South Korea), and the British Royal Marine Commandos. But don’t forget, the ill-equipped (and tyrannically led) communist Red Chinese troops fought bravely against these UN forces, sometimes fighting down to the very last man. UN forces retreated but Chinese forces were shattered; no one won.

War sucks. We as human animals seem to worship it, romanticize it, love it, and continue it. I confess: combat service has defined my own life; I will never be the same. But war is at its root insane, inhumane and immoral. Will we ever get over it? Can we as a species survive while acting this way?

The last seven minutes of the show will include a segment featuring Michael Strong and Magatte Wade, discussing how Free Cities will reduce poverty and create jobs, hope, and prosperity in the developing world.

The work to develop such cities is being spearheaded by the Free Cities Institute, but on the program Stossel actually refers to it as the “Free Cities Project.” So I’m creating this blog post to help point interested parties — as well as Google — to the correct website to find more information.

To learn more about these important initiatives, please visit the site for the Free Cities project (or, more formally, the Free Cities Institute).

UPDATE – The video of their interview is now available online.

I’d love to learn more about how he does it.

ROTTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) – The sun beams down on a warm Dutch spring morning, and the Iceman’s students look wary as they watch him dump bag after bag of ice into the tub of water where they will soon be taking a dip.

The plan is to try to overcome the normal human reaction to immersion in freezing slush: gasping for air, shivering uncontrollably, and getting back out again as soon as possible.

Instead, under the direction of “Iceman” Wim Hof, the group of athletes is going to stay in the water for minutes practicing his meditation techniques, seeking possible performance or health benefits.

Hof, 52, earned his nickname from feats such as remaining in a tank of ice in Hong Kong for almost 2 hours; swimming half the length of a football field under a sheet of ice in the Arctic; and making the Guinness record books for running a half-marathon barefoot in Finnish snow in deep subzero conditions.

Keep reading.

Tonight I find myself clarifying several of the key ideas that Ayn Rand developed that were expressed in the movie. Here are the four key ideas I see in ASM:

1. Innovation and the joy of creation
2. The importance of industrial production
3. Egoism and reason vs. altruism, faith, and force
4. The distinction between the productive class and the political class

Each of these points emerges from time to time as the theme of Atlas Shrugged comes forward: That theme is “What happens to society when the ‘men of the mind,’ the men of honest ability in any field, go on strike?” By the way, the movie does a 10-star job of getting across the theme and the related key ideas within its artistic format limits.

And later:

Without a doubt, ASM is a sterling movie of ideas, and the four I mention above—however vaguely grasped by a general public misled by decades of government schools and the advent of “TV Planet”—will play their way into the public consciousness. Perhaps slowly at first. Americans are not accustomed to movies illuminating big ideas in conceptual terms. Moreover, this is a movie that stands up for the good guys—which are all of us who insist on critical thought and on our rights to live as we choose for our own sakes. The average fellow has never heard a movie character state categorically that he intends to seek his own joy and abundance in life, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. It’s nice to see these good guys win, even when still relatively few people understand how good these good guys are.

When I walked out of the theater, there was a newfound spring in my step and confidence in my voice and bearing. On the most profound level, it made me feel as if I were “right,” and have been all along. Certainly others who have fond familiarity with the Randian oeuvre felt the same. And I speculate that those who are innocent of the book ideas, who may never have even heard of Ayn Rand, will experience a similar—yet not so intense—boost in authentic self-esteem. The movie, the ideas so well expressed by believable artists and artistry, makes me feel young again. That we’re going to turn our country around and throw out the evildoers. A natural high like no other: also, that the “great masses” will ultimately throw off their chains along with their externally contrived ignorance and rise to the occasion. Can’t wait for ASM 2 and 3.

This part is particularly relevant to our conversations today about the dangers of nuclear power:

To put it in perspective, in 2008 Next Big Future calculated how many people are killed per terawatt-hour of electricity generated. On average, there are 161 fatalities related to energy generation from coal for each one of those terawatt-hours, which comprise a quarter of the energy we use on Earth. 36 people die per TWh of oil energy, which is 40% of our energy use. Nuclear power has a deaths per TWh rate of only 0.04 while producing 6% of our energy, which makes it about ten times safer than solar power once you take into account how many people fall off roofs while installing it, and twice as safe as hydro power.

Nuclear power: Twice as safe as hydro, 10x safer than solar, and 1000x as safe as coal or oil.

Among energy idealists, solar power often gets credit for being safe — “We’re just capturing what the sun already gives us!” — but just imagine the environmental catastrophes if those incredibly toxic solar panels had washed out to sea during the tsunami in Japan.

I notice he’s no longer working under the “Fireball” title, which I think is a good call. There was something gimmicky about that, and distracting about the associated visuals.

Thanks to Marsh for the link.

What do you think of his presentations?

For those not already familiar with Hans, he has done some excellent work already covering the Atlas movie, including interviewing screenwriter Brian O’Toole and creating an excellent Atlas Shrugged chronology, outlining the dates of major events in the novel itself. I’m pleased to have his help covering the movie.

The Atlasphere’s meta-bloggers will continue covering any major developments in the movie, but this new blog will become our primary repository for Atlas Shrugged movie news and discussion.

Recent posts there include a preview (in text and photos) of the Atlas Shrugged movie, an interview with screenwriter Brian O’Toole, and a post with a link to the new official Atlas Shrugged – Part I movie website (a splash page, for now, enabling you to sign up for announcements).

Comments are enabled on this new blog and we look forward to hearing your thoughts as more and more information about the new movie becomes available.

If you’re as excited about the movie as we are and would like to join Hans and me as a co-blogger at the Atlas Shrugged movie blog, let me know.