The time is now. If you are going to fantasize about the possibilities of an extended Tevatron running and how likely it is that your favourite physics model may be tested by CDF and DZERO, you are advised to get in the game.

Over at the Autism Blogs Directory, we have over 400 blogs and websites representing a diversity of views and opinions on autism and what it means to the individuals who have it and the family members who must cope with the challenges of raising autistic children. We have parents and autistic individuals who are firmly convinced that vaccines cause autism. We have staunchly pro-science bloggers. We have folks who believe in god, that everything happens for a reason, and that autistic individuals are sent by god to teach us; we also have atheists, agnostics, and lukewarm Baptists, I'm sure. We have parents who are deep into biomed, parents who medicate, parents who don't, and all the ranges in between.

Women may regard love and affection and consideration as most important in a mate, but if research in African cichlid fish applies to humans, they are suppressing a more primitive instinct to like winners.  

In African cichlid fish, even when a female shows a preference for a male, if witnesses him losing a fight with another male, her feelings toward him change.   Areas of the female's brain associated with anxiety showed increased activity after witnessing an altercation.  Of course, being a winner in the eyes of cognitively diverse human females can take many different forms than pure combat.

Climatology might replace economics as the 'gloomy science'. Projections that the lousy economy might mean a slowdown in fossil fuels were cause for joy among activists, without realizing that people without jobs or food or houses aren't as concerned about abstract things like the future of the planet.

Whether or not global warming is a fashionable media topic in 2010, global carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, the main contributor to man-made global warming, show no sign of lessening and could still reach a new record this year, according to a study that is part of the annual carbon budget update by the Global Carbon Project.

Imagine you're navigating a three-dimensional maze. Believe it or not, in this situation, both men and women think. Only, women think with the distinctly human right prefrontal cortex, while men use the rat-brain navigational instincts of their left hippocampus (according to fMRI studies). Basically, what this means is that while men efficiently snuffle around the corridors, rationally and analytically memorizing each branching path, women look at the map. And if the map is unclear, they ask directions (not to reinforce a pop stereotype, or anything).

It seems a silly question to ask, given the self-evident answer: we know that all beliefs and opinions are not equally valid. Obviously, it's important to acknowledge that the person who believe something believes it to be true, but it doesn't mean it is.

The reason I raise this question is that most of us in the skeptical community patently reject the assumption that all "truths" are equally valid. What matters is evidence. Where there is no clear answer, rather than assuming a position of absolutism regarding "truth," we tend to adopt a "wait and see" approach or an honest "I don't know" approach.

This is not the case in most areas. Truthiness is often more important than truth.