But Is It Science?

Posted by jns on February 10, 2006

It is not often that I laugh out loud while reading court decisions. True, I may smile at a clever argument or an adept turn of phrase, or maybe chuckle over displays of willful stupidity; however, cackling is not a common response for me.

Today I’m finally giving a first read to Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller v Dover, the case last fall concerning the Dover, PA school-board’s decision to demand inclusion of so-called intelligent-design creationism in the curriculum of the biology classroom.^*

I’ve just gotten through the important first half in which the judge gives his rationale for finding that actions taken by the school board had been in violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. Just before he takes up the question of “Whether ID is Science” (section 4, p. 64), he offers the following justification. I think his tone is well indicated by his use of the word “traipse”, which I don’t think I’ve ever seen before in a judicial opinion (in case the reference to judicial waste of time hadn’t been clear enough).

We have now found that both an objective student and an objective adult member of the Dover community would perceive Defendants’ conduct to be a strong endorsement of religion pursuant to the endorsement test. Having so concluded, we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science. To be sure, our answer to this question can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing analysis. While answering this question compels us to revisit evidence that is entirely complex, if not obtuse, after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an establishment Clause?violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.

———-
^* Much useful information, including a copy of Jones’ opinion, can be found on this ACLU web page.

All In Perspective

Posted by jns on February 1, 2006

From a report about Exxon’s latest record earnings^*, this extraordinary statement

For the full year, net income surged to $5.71 per share from $3.89 per share in 2004. Annual revenue grew to $371 billion from $298.04 billion.

To put that into perspective, Exxon’s revenue for the year exceeded Saudi Arabia’s estimated 2005 gross domestic product of $340.5 billion, according to statistics maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Now, I’m not talking about the statement about Exxon’s revenues, which is extraordinary, but about the helpful “putting into perspective” that the revenues were about the same as the GDP of Saudi Arabia.

Does the average reader know more — or have more perspective on that number — knowing that it’s comparable to the GDP of a country whose economics are not terribly familiar? Please! That’s about as helpful as saying the earnings in dollars is about the same as the number of miles in a light-week, or the number of sperm the average man produces in a year (about 390 billion). Even saying that it’s nearly 5% of the US national debt is more revealing. (It is, however, only about 50% greater than Wal*Mart’s yearly revenues.)

How about something that really gives a sense of how big such a number is. Something like: imagine that you were able to spend $10,000/hour, 24/7, 365.25 days a year, a pretty breathtaking pace — for perspective, that’s over 4 new Hummer H2s each day (use the surplus to buy the gas) . It would take you over 42 thousand years to spend Exxon’s yearly revenue.

Or, suppose we were to use the money to pay out to people an amount equal to the median US income in 2004: $44.4 thousand. Exxon’s yearly revenues would pay the median income to 8.3 million workers. For perspective, that’s about 11 workers for every mile between Earth and the Sun.

To my mind, either of these comparisons gives quite a bit more “perspective” than the GDP of Saudia Arabia
———-
^* Steve Quinn, “Exxon Mobil Posts Record Profit for 2005“, Associated Press / Yahoo! News, 30 January 2006.