Police "psychics" have abysmal success rates

I posted this in another LJ in the comments, as part of a discussion about science and "other ways of knowing".

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/i-files.html

excerpt:
As these cases and profiles indicate, psychics do not solve crimes or locate missing persons—unless they employ the same non-mystical techniques as real detectives: obtaining and assessing factual information, receiving tips, and so on, even sometimes getting lucky. In addition to the technique of "retrofitting," psychics may shrewdly study local newspaper files and area maps, glean information from family members or others associated with a tragedy, and even impersonate police and reportedly attempt to bribe detectives (Nickell 1994).

Snacks!

As part of my effort to eat mindfully instead of compulsively, I always have snacks at work. I proceed on the philosophy that if you rate your level of hunger from 1 to 5, with 1 being "starving-- I want to eat my arm" and 5 being "so stuffed I have to unbutton my pants", you should try to always stay between 2 and 4. Feeling overstuffed is unpleasant, and feeling ravenous tempts you to eat too quickly and consume too much when you finally do get to eat.

If I have something yummy but nutritious in my drawer, I'm less tempted to raid the company snack bowl or buy something over-processed and high in sodium from the vending machine. I keep some over-processed stuff in there, occasionally, too, because if I'm really craving chips, I'd rather buy them myself cheap than spend 65 cents for a piddly portion. (In other words, I'm a tightwad, too.)

Snacks I tend to keep on hand include: cup-o-ramen noodles (shrimp), dark chocolate kisses, unsalted walnuts, crackers, granola bars, salt 'n' vinegar chips, and a mix of cheez-its and cashews (my favorite snack mix, ever). I also stash cheese and fruit in the fridge at work on a semi-regular basis.

Right now, I have mozerella string cheese and reduced-fat cheddar in the fridge. In my snack drawer, I have: lightly salted cashews, dark chocolate, a granola bar, BBQ crackers, and this completely awesome Kroger brand trail mix that has unsalted almonds and walnuts, raisins, banana chips, and dried pineapple, cranberries, papaya, and apricot. It's really low in sodium, unlike many other commercial trail mixes, and delicious.

What do you keep in your snack drawer/candy dish at work?

Interesting take on the debate about "Intelligent Design" in schools

http://www.slate.com/id/2127052/

excerpts:

Four months ago, when evolution and "intelligent design" (ID) squared off in Kansas, I defended ID as a more evolved version of creationism. ID posits that complex systems in nature must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The crucial step forward is ID's concession that "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building"—not scriptural authority—define science. Having acknowledged that standard, advocates of ID must now demonstrate how hypotheses based on it can be tested by experiment or observation. Otherwise, ID isn't science.

This week, ID is on trial again in Pennsylvania. And so far, its proponents aren't taking the experimental test they accepted in Kansas. They're ducking it.

...

Under the [Penn.] policy, "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design." Notice the "of" before "other theories." The policy doesn't tell teachers to discuss gaps and problems in ID. It tells them to discuss gaps and problems in Darwinism—and then to discuss ID as an alternative "theory." The board's brief makes clear that the policy's aim is "informing students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution, including the fact that there are alternative scientific theories."

...

So here's what ID proponents are offering to teach your kids: They won't say how ID works. They won't say how it can be tested, apart from testing Darwinism and inferring that the alternative is ID. They won't concede it has to be falsifiable. All they'll say is that Darwinism hasn't explained some things. But that's what the first half of the Dover policy says already. So there's no need for the second half—the part that mentions ID.

(emphasis added by me)