Speedkill

If you caught that spinning silhouette optical illusion thing today, I suggest checking out this post about the significance of what you see.

Jeff Science

1. Greatest award ever? The Ig Nobel for linguistics for this year:

Linguistics – A University of Barcelona team for showing that rats are unable to tell the difference between a person speaking Japanese backwards and somebody speaking Dutch backwards.

2. James Randi has challenged the reviewer of a pair of $7,250 audio cables to prove he can tell the difference between them and equivalent (and still overpriced) Monster cables. His million is the prize. While Randi is right in principle, it’s a little concerning. The review Randi quotes is absurd, but with the right equipment and really good ears it seems possible to hear a difference between the two cables. Extraordinarily unlikely, in my opinion, but possible in a non-paranormal way. In the end, Randi won’t be taken up for the same reasons the other famous purveyors of pseudo-scientific bullshit won’t: the risk to their livelihood is too great.

3. Downside to being an atheist: I have to deity to blame for the snow here. It’s October, I’m not prepared for this yet.

Jeff Science, Skepticism

What would you say about drawing a parallel between God and imaginary numbers? I can’t really think of anything to say. Read about it here.

Jeff Religion, Science

I’ve argued here and other places for the reality of anthropogenic global warming. I don’t do it a lot, mainly because it doesn’t seem to do any good.

It’s pretty obvious that the debate has become a political debate. This isn’t something recent and I don’t mean that in the trivial sense that the idea is involved in political discussions; I mean that the debate itself, which is a scientific debate, is debated as a politics instead. You’ll notice that other scientific issues that have public policy consequences, notably evolution, haven’t aren’t debated in this way. AGW seems to be the main one at the moment. Discourse inevitably suffers when this happens, as illustrated by a few recent postings around the MT blogosphere.

The primary consequence is a combination of arrogance and misdirection that never leads us to enlightenment. Let’s take this recent post over at MTPolitics, where GMan posted a link to the British TV program “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” GMan proclaims most of the country duped by global warming and proclaims it a scare tactic being used by neo-Marxists. These are, of course, political terms that are misplaced when discussing the reality of AGW (though, to be clear, not when being used to criticize political policies proposed to alleviate the danger of AGW). The documentary has been out for a while and has generated some comments by scientists in the field who provide commentary to the public, which has generally been negative. In addition to the misdirected venom, there’s also some arrogance here. Let’s take the idea that the sun is causing global warming. There’s a nice graph in the documentary, showing solar activity and temperature. They correlate quite strongly, it appears. But let’s think about this. Even if you dispute the idea of a consensus about AGW, you have to admit that lots of climate scientists (i.e. the IPCC) support the hypothesis. They are also not stupid. They are very bright people who, while obviously susceptible to personal biases, are trained in a field that rigorous testing and checking to root out errors. Now, that graph is pretty convincing, on the face of it. Are all those people just ignoring it? Covering it up? Of course not. As it turns out, there are arithmetic errors in the data for that graph. There are also many other studies concluding the opposite, such as this recent one published by the Royal Society.

That’s maybe the biggest problem with where the debate is currently. Becoming a political debate has brought with it a tendency towards “gotcha” argument. On another thread at MTPolitics a comment proclaims “Latest scientific analysis suggests that temperature increases PRECEDE CO2 increases!” Again, these are complicated issues that have very smart people working on them. Do we really think there’s no commentary on this claim? Calling it “latest” is misleading, as this evidence has been around a while and while it complicates the picture, it doesn’t invalidate AGW. However, it’s used without context to score a point, not to discover truth.

Arrogance has led to some other arguments, less “gotcha,” but still wrong. GeeGuy has attacked the use of “consensus” in arguments about AGW. Scientific consensus is a valuable piece of evidence for the public. We are obviously not all scientists trained in the disciplines necessary to critique and discuss the claims about any scientific issues. We can be scientifically literate and laymen can achieve an impressive understanding of an issue, but we have to be careful. Most of us simply do not have the necessary knowledge and must ultimately defer to expertise. However, expertise can be slippery and one expert may disagree with another. This is where consensus is useful. If we have solid agreement about what’s happening and how sure we are about it, that’s the expertise to which we must ultimately defer. Now, it is obviously frustrating to someone who is trying to understand the issues (or thinks he understands and is engaging in debate) to be presented with an argument relying on scientific consensus. Rather than thinking of this as a bludgeon, I would propose it be thought of this way: there’s an enormous group of people trained in the relevant disciplines who are contradicting your claim. Individually, some of them may be dishonest or biased, but, due to the scientific method, when they are put together many of those errors and biases are corrected. This would imply that whatever claim you make, it’s likely that they’ve seen it. It’s also likely that they’ve responded to it. Which means you should do some more research. That’s the answer to some of claims made above that I critiqued. It’s also a good rule of thumb when dealing with subjects you are not an expert in: you’re probably not original and what you’ve come up with has probably already been discussed.

In a sense, people like Andy are correct that the consensus argument is used to shut down debate. But this is not something nefarious, nor does it imply AGW believers aren’t confident in their beliefs. Endless debate is paralyzing. Debate eventually has to stop and policy decisions made. Resorting to consensus is a message to those who disagree to go back to the discussion that’s already been had. It suggests the confidence to move the debate forward, not insecurity. It could be over-confidence or arrogance, but it’s confidence nonetheless. Let’s remember: doubt and skepticism are certainly good things, but it can become unreasonable. To understand the frustration here, think about your reaction if every time you tried to bring up the issue of bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics (something with profound consequences for our health), someone starts an argument about evolution. You would be annoyed, even if the person was well-meaning.

My point is simple: turning AGW into a political debate is bad. Those so virulently attacking the hypothesis would do well to take a step back and re-examine the evidence they have on their side. Stay away from articles in the media and look to people with expertise on the issue. Dig into the claims made and realize that this isn’t an evidence-less conspiracy against your current position. Attempting to understand the issues is always good, but understand your limits. Humility is good for anyone (and environmentalists in particular), but I would suggest it to those on the side skeptical of AGW here. To those who believe in AGW: consensus is nice, but show some interest in the issues. Much of it isn’t that complicated and you will be better equipped to deal with claims for and against AGW.

Postscript: What’s the media’s role in all this? We all know they’re constantly hoodwinked by false science and they distort good science to make it sell. The post by Andy I linked above has a good example: global cooling. A book and a couple papers proposed that idea in the 70s and Newsweek latched onto it. It was never scientific consensus, though Newsweek presented it as though it was. As that illustrates, the media deserve critique, but let’s make sure we separate the issues. When we’re talking about the reality of AGW, newspaper articles and op-eds are dangerous. Science magazines and blogs are much better, though there is obviously danger there as well.

Jeff Environment, Science, The Right

Ok, so I don’t actually know anything about farming. Dave points us to an interesting TCS article about organic farming. Now, I realize trusting TCS is about as intelligent an idea as whacking yourself in the face with a hammer, but it’s worth a read. It’s not the only example of “organic farming” having adverse consequences with regard to the environment.

Scientists have been able to genetically modify pigs to digest phosphorus in their diet better and reduce it by up to 75% in their manure. Organic farmers have decided that they won’t use GM organisms, so if they raise pigs they end up putting more phosphorus into the environment than necessary. Mother Jones has an old article about the conflict here.

Organic farming began with pseudo-scientific essentialism: that naturally produced substances are better than ones synthesized or modified by humans, even if the two in question are chemically identical. It started with BioDynamics, but organic farmers don’t seem to subscribe to that nonsense at present. Now it’s more just a preference for natural substances, which is still dubious. Anytime you hear someone mention “all-natural” as a positive trait, just remember that cyanide is all-natural, too.

And just so I can take another shot at the anti-GM crowd, who can forget anti-GM activists convincing African nations facing food emergencies to reject GM food aid? GM food that they have no evidence is in any way harmful. Brilliant.

This isn’t to say that there are no benefits to organic farming (it does appear to produce healthier food in some instances), just that “organic” methods are not a good guide to what’s better for us and the environment. Evaluating individual substances and practices on their actual merits is far more useful. It’s such a novel idea, too.

That’s my organic farming rant, anyway. If I claimed to be an environmentalist, I think they’d be revoking my membership card about now.

Jeff Environment, Science

The NY Times has an article about science and the existence of the soul. There’s not really any substance to it, just discussions of what it could mean for science to show that the soul probably doesn’t exist. Of course, science can’t really do that; at best it could say that it’s unnecessary, which is essentially the conclusion the article is discussing. I was interested in one paragraph with a quote by Ken Miller:

“Everything we know about the biological sciences says that life is a phenomenon of physics and chemistry, and therefore the notion of some sort of spirit to animate it and give the flesh a life really doesn’t fit with modern science,” said Dr. Miller, a Roman Catholic whose book, “Finding Darwin’s God” (Harper, 1999) explains his reconciliation of the theory of evolution with religious faith. “However, if you regard the soul as something else, as you might, say, the spiritual reflection of your individuality as a human being, then the theology of the soul it seems to me is on firm ground.”

I don’t understand this ability to completely redefine words that religion has. A soul has traditionally meant the immaterial essence of a person, as described by Miller in the first sentence. Yes, if we redefine it as some sort of reflection of who you are it’s not in conflict with science. But so what? It’s like saying murder isn’t so bad if you define it as riding a bike.

Jeff Religion, Science

Look, a new poll on evolution. We get to be depressed about the support for creationism and the oddity of human response to pollsters.

First, we’re very agreeable. Two-thirds of use agree that creationism is probably or definitely true and 53% believe evolution is definitely or probably true. The way these two positions are defined in the poll question make them incompatible. So we’re rather blatantly contradicting ourselves (yes, I realize you don’t have people literally agreeing to both, given the sampling setup). Unthinking simpletons or sycophantic yes-men? You decide.

Second, “I believe in Jesus Christ” is not a reason to disbelieve in evolution. Also, more frequent church attendance and being a Republican are correlated with disbelief in evolution.

So, church-going Republicans: please stop making us look stupid.*

Read more…

Jeff Religion, Science, The Right

I’ve been meaning to comment on Sam Brownback’s Op-Ed in the NY Times entitled “What I Think About Evolution,” so here goes.

IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.

The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

Right off the bat we get an unsupported assumption and faulty conclusion derived from that assumption. The significance of the question is simply this: if you don’t believe in evolution, you’re scientifically illiterate or are letting your biases creep into an area where they don’t belong. As we’ll see later, it’s Brownback who can’t handle the nuance required to reconcile faith and science.

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

This is patently false, however. If religion dealt only with “spiritual truths” then Brownback would not have explain how he fits faith and evolution together, as he does later on. It would be like talking about how you reconcile your taste for carrots with your love of hiking. It would be pointless and nonsensical. Seeing as there’s quite a bit left in this Op-Ed, Brownback is talking nonsense here.

People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

This is more “two magisteria” crap that Brownback pretty clearly doesn’t mean. Science doesn’t deal with what we should value and no one wants it to. This is more empty blather.

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

What a strange paragraph. He starts to trot out the standard creationist trope about microevolution differing from macroevolution, but doesn’t finish. He starts talking about materialism. I’m fairly certain that evolution is not the choice between microevolution and materialism. I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone say that it is, either.

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

First, a simple factual error. “Classical Darwinism” is not a position supported by really anyone. What he means to say is punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism. Secondly, evolution doesn’t raise the possibility that man is a chance product of random mutations. That’s another creationist trope that’s patently absurd to anyone who knows what they’re talking about. Evolution says man is the product of billions of years of accumulated genetic change, driven primarily by natural selection. Just like basic human biology says that human beings are created by the combination of genetic material from a male and a female. I can’t say I’ve ever seen people advocate leaving areas of developmental biology to theologians and philosophers based on the story of the virgin birth.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

If you want divine causality to be a part of science, you’re advocating the end of science. It’s one thing to believe in divine causality, it’s another to attempt to force consideration of it into the scientific method.

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

More microevolution bullshit. The sleight of hand here is not particularly subtle. Brownback wanders up to the edge of evolution and pronounces his support for microevolution. It makes him look like a supporter of science, but doesn’t offend creationists. Then he jumps basically 90% of evolutionary biology and criticizes not believing in creator, which offends very few people and doesn’t force him to support or deny evolution, disagreeing only with the non-religious. It’s cute, but not a particularly useful way of answering “what I think about evolution.”

Of course, Brownback fails to completely jump that chasm. People like Ken Miller, a Catholic evolutionary biologist and staunch opponent of ID, believe in divine purpose, but don’t include it in their scientific method. That’s because it’s a useless concept scientifically. It’s equivalent to saying something is magic. When you say something is the way it is because of divine causation, you’re giving up. There can be no evidence for such a conclusion because everything is consistent with it. It’s unfalsifiable and is therefore of no use to anyone scientifically. If you’re going to believe in it, it’s going to be on faith, not science or reason. That Brownback is incapable of making this distinction is a sign of inferior intelligence.

Brownback starts his conclusion next. I’ll only quote part of it.

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

I like the first paragraph. It’s a rejection of most of astronomy and cosmology, which shows that we’re not in a unique place in the Universe. It rejects biology, which shows that we’re not that different from other living things on this planet and possibly others. It’s a rejection of physics, which shows that we’re made up of the same materials as the rest of the Universe interacting in the same way as those materials could in other places.

In the end, Brownback is rejecting anything that contradicts his religious beliefs about the world. It really doesn’t have anything to do with “atheistic theology.” His failure to stick to his statements that religion only reveals “spiritual truths” and not physical facts and his inability to separate his religious beliefs from what science is shows him to be another fundamentalist weasel, attempting to sneak his religion into areas it doesn’t belong. Furthermore, he doesn’t even answer the question he set out to. As I said above, he accepts the creationist approved part of evolution and dismisses creator-less conclusions drawn from evolution, avoiding the core conclusion of evolutionary biology: the evolution of all species from a common ancestor over billions of years by way of accumulated genetic change directed by natural selection. It’s a politician’s view of the subject, an attempt to avoid looking like an anti-science moron while not upsetting his core supporters. It also shows his faith to be frighteningly weak, as he refuses to accept basic biology because his faith can’t handle it. What does it say about a person to have a religious faith built on a tissue of lies?

Jeff 2008 elections, Religion, Science

This weekend a local church is putting on a “creation science” conference (PDF), featuring the illustrious Institute for Creation Research. That’s right, we’re going to be in the company of such luminaries as Henry Morris and Duane Gish for a weekend.

I’m very tempted to head over for the Friday night sessions with Morris and Gish. The program doesn’t appear to allot Q&A time for those talks, though, so it wouldn’t be that interesting.

You can also register and get a credit at the “Montana Bible College” if you complete some kind of coursework and pay $130. I can’t say I’ve ever heard of MBC, though it’s located here in Bozeman.

Perhaps I should just go to the Museum of the Rockies for an evening. That would be far more educational and I could see the giant T-Rex skull they have.

Jeff Religion, Science

This is fascinating. Your musical preferences reflect your personality to a significant degree. Perhaps not the most surprising result, but interesting nonetheless.

The STOMP results were fed into a factor analysis, which yielded four factors, or dimensions, of musical preferences. Rentfrow and Gosling labeled these dimensions “Reflective and Complex,” which included the genres blues, jazz, classical, and folk; “Intense and Rebellious,” which included rock, alternative, and heavy metal; “Upbeat and Conventional,” including country, sound tracks, religious, and pop; and “Energetic and Rhythmic,” including rap and hip/hop, soul and funk, as well as electronica and dance. The correlations between these factors from the first testing and the retesting were high (between .77 and .82), indicating that STOMP and its resulting factors were reliable. Subsequent testing with more diverse samples (the original sample was comprised entirely of university undergrads) indicated that the factors were generalizable as well.

…

• Reflective and Complex: positively correlated with openness to experience, “self-perceived intelligence,” verbal ability, emotional stability, and political liberalism. Negatively correlated with “social dominance orientation,” political conservatism, wealth, and athleticism.
• Intense and Rebellious: positively correlated with openness to experience, extroversion, athleticism, “self-perceived intelligence,”"social dominance orientation,” and verbal ability.
• Upbeat and Conventional: positively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, self-esteem, political conservatism, physical attractiveness (self-perceived), wealth, and athleticism. Negatively correlated with emotional stability, openness to experience, “social dominance orientation,” depression, political liberalism, intelligence, and verbal ability.
• Energetic and Rhythmic: Positively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, political liberalism, physical attractiveness, and athleticism. Negatively correlated with “social dominance orientation” and political conservatism.

You have to guess genres like rock and heavy metal are associated with rebellion and intensity, but I know I’m not like that. I’m one of the most laid back people you’ll ever meet. Then again, I do listen to a lot of post-rock, which I suppose goes into the reflective and complex category. I wouldn’t say I’m particularly complex, either, though.

Interesting stuff, in any case.

Jeff Music, Science