m i c h a e l o w e n h i l l

It's 80 degrees in mid-March in Minnesota. In case you don't know, that's around 40 degrees above normal. It's been that way for a while and it looks like it will continue. The maple trees are giving folks with allergies fits already. The flip-flop, that disgusting feature of warm months in the Midwest, has made its earliest annual appearance in years. Some of the birds are back early, too.

Look, I don't particularly understand the angry irrational people who insist climate change is a conspiracy -- presumably authored by Al Gore and a bunch of librul science-type eggheads determined to take away our god-given right to drive SUVs and pickup trucks -- but I do understand and appreciate skepticism. Skepticism, unlike positional disbelief or illogical denialism, is not a hallmarks of small or closed minds; rather, skepticism is reflective of great curiosity about the deeper truths of life and a willingness and ability to look for those deeper truths without insisting that nothing is ever as it seems.

A true skeptic realizes that some or even most phenomena are likely fairly straightforward and completely unmysterious, assuming one has a full understanding what is actually going on. In examining any mundane phenomenon, skeptics do not generally jump to the conclusion that there are vast political (or scientific) conspiracies or supernatural agencies at work.

This is not to say, however, that the skeptic is closed to the experience of wonder or mystery, or that faith and skepticism are mutually exclusive attributes. Anyone who rejects out of hand the possibility of a greater truth or symmetry or meaning underlying phenomenological reality is not a skeptic. Like the frightened and frightening "true believer" who sees the Devil (or the Democrats) at work in anything he or she does not understand, the vitriolic and smugly self-assured "unbeliever" has abandoned skepticism for an easier and more comfortable world where the fundamental questions have been answered and one can live in the certainty that one is superior for seeing the "truth" so many others fail to apprehend.

Scientists often do a better job of balancing on the intellectual tightrope of skepticism than do, say, politicians, pundits and entertainers. That being said, individually and collectively scientists can fall prey to the disease of dogmatism. What is important to realize is that unlike politics or religion, in which consensus determines reality, science is largely immune to blind belief or unbelief, even if scientists sometimes trade rigorous skepticism for easy answers.

Why is science immune if scientists are not? Well, science is a systematic method of studying the world in order to derive theories (or rules) that explain how it works now, deduce how it worked in the past, and predict how it will work in the future. Science is simply the method by which some choose to explore and understand the universe around us. It is not a system of belief, it is a system of experimentation and analysis that is rooted in curiosity, skepticism and not a little intellectual courage.

For all that, science is applied by imperfect and occasionally irrational human beings and therefore it is good and right to take any scientific theory or consensus opinion with a grain of salt. Scientists themselves are often self-skeptical, an attribute that would do the average politician, pundit or entertainer a world of good. Science is not perfect, and scientists know it. Scientific consensus can be wrong. It's highly likely that there are fundamental assumptions accepted by the vast majority of scientists today that will sooner or later be determined to be false.

The world does not operate on political or religious consensus opinion. And even though science is a powerful tool, scientific consensus also does not determine reality. So don't trust the scientists who tell us that the global climate is changing, if you don't want to. And whether your reluctance to accept the notion stems from healthy skepticism or irrational denialism is no business of mine.

But you're a fool not to trust the maple trees in Minnesota. Or the birds. They have no political agenda, and they couldn't care less about scientific debate. They're just quietly working to adapt to a changing environment. The natural world is not trying to convince you of anything, which is why it's the one thing you can trust to tell you the truth.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Failure. I know the old saying is that "it's better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all." but let's face it -- failure hurts. It's like the other saying, "it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved." Philosophically, I'm sure that's true, but I don't live philosophy, I live a real life where failing -- or losing love -- is the more painful alternative. And regardless of our ideals, I think many people are the same.

I don't mean one should avoid trying things when there is a risk of failure, or that one should never love in order to avoid loss. Clearly you have to live life fully even in the absence of any guarantees. I just believe it's better not to candy-coat the truth: failure sucks a lot worse than any missed opportunity.

That being said, I wholeheartedly believe it's better to try, whether you succeed or fail, than to live a fear-based life.

Ask me anything