Playing with a telescope seems like the perfect way to wind down the Year of Astronomy. And they make very nice gifts (although December delivery is apparently not guaranteed). If you’ve never looked through a half-decent telescope, you will be absolutely astounded by what you see. One forgets that all these things we talk about and see pictures of really exist up there, and are just waiting to be admired!

You have to love YouTube, although this is only an excerpt from a somewhat longer speech. Most of the text is here.

As promised, we’re also doling out some loot. For those having contributed over $100, we will arrange for a copy of Sean’s new book (you do know he has a book coming out, right?) to get to you, once it’s available (expected in early January). For contributions of $500 or more (of which there were at least five), a copy of Sean’s lectures on the dark universe will be forthcoming. To claim your thank you gift, please contact me (if you haven’t already) with your name and address, and the amount contributed.

Most importantly, thank you to everyone for making this an incredible success. I encourage you to read over the many thank you notes at our giving page, and hear about the direct impact you’ve all made on the lives of these children. And, of course, although the Media Challenge is officially over, there’s nothing to stop you from continuing to donate. There are still plenty of budding Einsteins, being held back by a lack of basic necessities that you could directly provide.

The anti-vaccination movement is a little weird — they claim that vaccines, which are universally credited with wiping out smallpox and polio and other bad things, are responsible for causing autism and diabetes and other also-bad things, all just to make a buck for pharmaceutical companies. The underlying motivation seems to be a combination of the conviction that things must happen for a reason — if a child develops autism, there must be an enemy to blame — and a general distrust of science and technology. Certainly the pro-science point of view is fairly unequivocal; like any medicine, vaccines should be used properly, but they have done great good for the world and there are very real dangers of increased risk for epidemics if enough children stop receiving them. Good for WIRED for taking on the issue and publishing an uncompromisingly pro-science piece on it.

But the anti-vax movement is more than just committed; they’re pretty darn virulent. And since the article came out, author Amy Wallace has been subject to all sorts of attacks. She’s been documenting them on her Twitter feed, which I encourage you to check out. Some lowlights:

It’s pretty horrifying stuff. But there is good news: Wallace also reports that the large majority of emails she has received were actually in favor of the piece, and expressed gratitude that she had written it. There are strong forces arrayed against science, but the truth is on our side, and a lot of people recognize it. It gives one a bit of hope.

Although I’m sure you don’t need any further incentive, in recognition that it’s a material world Sean has kindly offered up a copy of his forthcoming book as a token of thanks for those donating over $100 (of which there are at least eight thus far) . (Guest blogger Kip Thorne tells us “…this book is a must read. It is beautifully written, lucid, and deep.” And you can’t argue with Kip.) Donors who contribute over $500 (we have one thus far) will receive a copy of Sean’s lectures on “The dark side of the Universe” as an emphatic THANK YOU! To claim your ‘reward’, email me your name, address, and the amount contributed. What are you waiting for? A bunch of kindergarten kids in Oklahoma are counting on you.

But I gave a colloquium yesterday at Caltech, and afterwards one of the folks who came to dinner was Lloyd Knox, an old friend and a cosmologist at UC Davis. Talk naturally turned to his most well-known work: the Dark Energy Song, sung to his class and (inevitably) captured to video and posted to YouTube by a quick-thinking student. But to my surprise, it only has about 1,000 views! Surely we can help bring this masterpiece to a wider audience.

Note that musical/lyrical critiques by people who have not demonstrated bravery by putting their own performances on YouTube will be derided as acts of base cowardice.

President Obama yesterday conferred The National Medal of Science to Jim Gunn, as well as 8 other scientists. This is our nation’s highest scientific honor. It is a clear demonstration that our society values science, and acknowledges its contributions; even though this may not always be apparent in the squabbling on Capitol Hill, or on school boards “debating” evolution. Once a year scientists take pride of place, and are officially thanked by a grateful Nation. As usual, Obama unleashes his eloquence:

So this nation owes all of you an enormous debt of gratitude far greater than any medal can bestow. And we recognize your contributions, but we also celebrate the incredible contributions of the scientific endeavor itself. We see the promise — not just for our economy but for our health and well-being — in the human capacity for creativity and ingenuity. And we are reminded of the power of free and open inquiry, which is not only at the heart of all of your work, but at the heart of this experiment we call America.
…
there are those who say we can’t afford to invest in science, that it’s a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I could not disagree more. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, and our health, and our way of life than it has ever been. And the winners we are recognizing only underscore that point, with achievements in physics and medicine, computer science and cognitive science, energy technology and biotechnology. We need to ensure that we are encouraging the next generation of discoveries — and the next generation of discoverers.

Full transcript here. Jim Gunn was honored “for his brilliant design of many of the most influential telescopes and instruments in astronomy, and in particular for the crucial role those technological marvels played in the creation of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has cataloged 200 million stars, galaxies, and quasars; discovered the most distant known quasars; and probed the epoch of formation of the first stars and galaxies.”

Sitting in the audience were members of the administration, including Steve Chu (Secretary of Energy) and John Holdren (Science Advisor), widely respected scientists in their own right. Seeing them gathered with Obama, celebrating science, is a hopeful image. There is a perception that scientists are losing the goodwill amassed in the last Century, and are now thought of as just another interest group. But we need science to address many of the world’s most pressing challenges. We need young people to be inspired, and to want to become scientists. Occasions like this remind us that science, and scientists, will play a crucial role in our future.

The primary reason for Hawking’s resignation is apparently not his recent health travails. Rather, it is customary for the Lucasian Professor to retire at the age of 67. And not even Hawking messes with centuries of tradition.

The big question now: who will follow in Hawking’s footsteps?

Sean was intrigued by the search for an Economic “Theory of Everything”. He points out that this theory may indeed exist, and when found, will be proclaimed beautiful. Of course, the analogies to String Theory are irresistible. But I will resist. As Sean suggests, General Relativity is a beautiful theory. In fact, it’s stupendously gorgeous. (Unlike quantum mechanics, which although it certainly possesses its charms, is not something I would call ravishing.) General Relativity also happens to be right, so far as we can tell. It is a significant improvement over Newtonian gravity, which itself is no ugly duckling. We’ve come a long way from Ptolemy. Indeed, aesthetics plays a major role in science. The Nobel Laureate himself singles out Sean’s post, and mentions it on his blog. Beauty and truth are not in opposition. But beauty is not a replacement for truth.

As I was reading through Krugman’s essay, however, I confess to a certain amount of envy. His description of the field of economics made it sound awfully familiar. People have different theories. They argue. They write papers. There are influential thinkers. There’s lots of math. It’s just like physics, with one crucial difference:
You’re probably expecting me to say that economics is essentially gobbledygook, while physics is a “pure” science. That may be true, but it’s an argument for another day. What struck me is the fact that what economists do and say really matters, in an immediate and tangible way. They engage in abstruse arguments about the money supply and the subprime market, but at the end of the day, someone somewhere listens to them, and makes a decision about the interest rate, or whether to bailout a troubled bank. Suddenly, millions of people may be out of work. Trillions of dollars may evaporate. A large fraction of the population of the planet may be affected.

Of course, it’s not that physics is irrelevant. It is almost impossible not to look around and see the role of physicists in one’s daily life (starting with the computer in front of you). But if I miss a factor of two, a family in Detroit does not go hungry. Although economics often seems like a “lightweight” discipline, when compared to harder sciences, it has the advantage of immediate relevancy. And at first blush, this seems highly desirable. On second thought, however, maybe I’d rather not have to worry about destroying Iceland while looking for a bug in my code.