A good scientist is able to evaluate a lot of information, and choose the best path. A poor scientist may believe the first thing that he/she hears. Or, they may come up with their own model of what they think is true and be supremely confident that they are correct. They may ignore evidence that goes against their model. They may not be nimble, and adapt to new information. I've see a great improvement in the quality of thought on this page over the last year or more. Rather than just accepting what they want of their pet theory or what someone else has said, there is some discussion and thought going into this.

In what I do, I am constantly catching my own errors, and adding more data to my interpretations, and sometimes have to change my interpretation. I must have some level of confidence that what I have done is correct, but still be willing to change if the evidence is against me.

The link that I posted below is the extremely well-reasoned, well-written New York Times editorial endorsing John Kerry for president. I hope that everyone reads it carefully. And, I challenge supporters of George Bush to find an editorial that makes as good a case to vote for George Bush. Or, even to make the case themselves.

George Bush and his team are very confident that they are correct. And, they do not seem very good at evaluating information.

Most of you seem to live in California. Everyone needs to vote even if the state is not in play for president. You have a U.S representative to vote for, and you may have one of your US sentaors to vote for (?). Plus, if Bush wins the Electoral vote but loses the popular vote, maybe he will think twice about his radical right-wing agenda. OK, maybe not.
Chris

• well-reasoned editorial