(mostly) Rationally Speaking

the ice is thinning, but we're still doing nothing...

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:23:15 GMT

More impressive and disturbing news about ice melting in both the Artic and Antartic regions, something that is happening at a much higher rate than previously thought. Something that could have dire consequences for the world's climate and geography -- including the possibility of dramatic raises in sea levels that could obliterate many current island nations.

The consequences of all this could be immense, both ecologically and economically. And yet, the Bush administration is stalling action and calling for new studies, because there is still some controversy among scientists on the real causes of global warming (though at this point nobody seems to deny that the globe is indeed warming up!).

This isn't only criminal stupidity, it's also a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Scientists are human beings, some of them will always disagree on something, from global warming to the theory of evolution. But in the case of global warming what is at stakes is much, much more than a fascinating academic dispute. That is why we should be proactive even in the absence of a consensus, assume that human activities have at least something to do with the warming trend, and act now. If we are wrong, we will have suffered some economic loss and hardship; but if we don't do anything, we could loose civilization as we know it. Is that risk worth the pleasure of driving your SUV?

when social science is pseudo-science

Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:53:47 GMT

So, according to social scientist Cliff Arnall of Cardiff University (UK), January 24 is "gloomiest day of the year," a conclusion he has arrived at by means of a mathematical formula that accounts for everything from the weather (guess what, it's usually dark and rainy, at least in England) to the amount of credit card debt we have accumulated (you mean it's at a peak after Christams? You don't say!).

Of course Arnall is (sort of) right: January may be one of the most depressing months of the year (in the northern emisphere), because of the cold, short days, financial outlook, etc. of most people. That is just common sense, part of everyone's experience. But to pinpoint a specific day as the gloomiest is just silly: no amount of (not too fancy, really) mathematics can yield that precise of a measurement of the human condition; there will always be a range because human beings are complex, and so are the many factors that influence our lives and moodes.

That is not to say, of course, that one cannot do good science while studying societal behavior, but I'm afraid Arnall is way off the mark on this one.

the travesty has began in Dover, PA

Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:27:07 GMT

OK then, for the first time in the history of American education, public school students had to hear some nonsense about the possibility that the universe has been "intelligently designed" (what about tsunamis?, one would immediately want to ask), though the designer was left unspecified by the administrators who read a statement to several science classes (the teachers refused to do it).

Moreover, when students started asking questions about intelligent design, the administrators left the classroom, suggesting that questions on the matter should be asked at home. Right, so why not let the whole matter to be discussed at home, in church, or even in philosophy or comparative religions classes? But not science, c'mon! To call this "an honest scientific evaluation of the theory of evolution" is a travesty, and one that is already been challenged in court. More on this as the court date (September 26) approaches...

Birds & dinosaurs: how science really works

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:50:18 GMT

Science magazine has just published a summary of research on the developmental biology of dinosaurs and birds which not only confirms the evolutionary connection between the two groups of animals (basically, birds are dinosaurs of a particular kind), but that shows how real science (as opposed to, say, creationism?) works.

Most paleontologists have agreed based on a variety of empirical evidence that birds are the direct descendants of a particular group of dinosaurs, but a consistent minority of scientists has disagreed (which, contrary to claims by supporters of pseudo-science, isn't a sign of crisis at all, but rather of a healthy critical debate among scientists). One of the "bones" of contention, so to speak, was represented by the development of fingers in birds and dinosaurs: both kinds of animals have three fingers as adults, as opposed to the five that are normal for vertebrates in general. Until now, however, scientists thought that while dinosaurs retained digits n. 1, 2 and 3, birds had lost n. 1 and retained the three middle digits. This would count as evidence against a close phylogenetic connection between the two groups.

But new molecular developmental work has actually shown that what looks superficially like digit n. 2 in birds is really the standard first digit of vertebrates in general. Molecular biologists have been able to determine this by examining which genes are involved in the formation of the various digits in the developing bird embryo. Therefore, what seemed until recently an out of place piece of the puzzle turns out to fit perfectly with the prevailing hypothesis. This is the way science works: if new evidence supports the accepted hypothesis, the latter receives further confirmation and grows in strength and acceptance; if enough new pieces of evidence don't fit, eventually the hypothesis is discarded in favor of an alternative that explains things better.

When was the last time you heard of an intelligent design proponent abandoning a hypothesis because it didn't fit the evidence?

Uncommon Knowledge, with Jonathan Wells and yours truly

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:20:49 GMT

A few days ago I taped an episode of the PBS-broadcast show "Uncommon Knowledge" in Stanford, CA. The show will probably air sometime during the next couple of months. The topic was intelligent design, and I was facing Discovery Institute's creationist Jonathan Wells, author of "Icons of Evolution."

It was an interesting experience in the sense that I thought Wells conceded so many points that one would conclude that there is no real reason to debate the issue at all. When pressed (either by me or by the host -- the latter slightly leaning toward Wells' position in his sympathies), Wells admitted that ID doesn't make any positive empirically verifiable prediction (hence, it isn't science by the currently accepted concept of it), and went as far as saying that ID should not be taught in public schools, because it is "too young a theory."

Of course, ID is actually older (much older) than evolution as an idea, going all the way back to Plato. But never mind that. This is the second time I face an ID proponent whose arguments, when challenged in a more or less intelligent manner, regress to the point of very modest and essentially irrelevant statements (the other time was a live debate in front of an audience in Kansas a couple of years ago, when I was facing Discovery Institute's Paul Nelson). Indeed, maybe I should count also a couple of public meetings with Bill Dembski in the same category. Though Bill conceded much less than either Wells or Nelson, he was almost constantly on the defensive, and looking very awkard at that!

Could it be that all it takes to show what these people are really about is a bit of politely presented attacks (as opposed to defenses of evolution)? Can it be that simple? Of course, what impact all of this has on the audience is a whole different matter...

Bush, public prayers and court challenges

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:57:00 GMT

Mike Newdow (who I met personally, nice bright guy) has tried and failed again to put a stop to obvious infringements of the separation between Church and State in the US. You may recall his failed (on a technicality) attempt to get "under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance last year).

Newdow wanted the Supreme Court to forbid Bush from having a prayer said at his inauguration. The request, seems to me, is obviously correct, as no sensible person would deny that invoking God at a public ceremony celebrating the election of the nation's leader is as clear a violation of the C-S separation as one can imagine. (So it is to have our children say "under God" every day of their lives in public schools, of course, or to put "in God we trust" on our money.)

But of course both lower courts and Supreme Court justice Renquist rejected Newdow's argument. The White House invoked the lamiest (and yet most common) of the arguments: well, every president has done it for 200 years, so... (by the same token, we could justify slavery, which after all has a "tradition" of thousands of years).

The other question, however, is whether Mike's attempts are ultimately hurting more than helping his own cause. True, he is getting a lot of publicity. But he is unlikely to obtain any actual result, and by and large what he is doing is to attract the ires of conservative Christians, and even somewhat negative reactions from mainstream religious people who see him as an "extremist." The last thing we need, seems to me, is to give the Christian right one more excuse to claim that they are a "persecuted" majority (as nonsensical as that may be), especially considering that even if Newdow wins nothing of substance is going to change.

Then again, you've got to admire the guy's guts...

Good coverage of the Dover story by ABC News

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:17:30 GMT

Last night ABC News did a nice job at covering the story of the ongoing battle in Dover, PA to teach intelligent design. The article on the ABC News website is more detailed, but a bit "too balanced" for my taste (and as usual, it leaves the last word to the creationists).

A couple of things strike me as painfully obvious here. First, the people voting in favor of teaching ID -- literally -- don't know what they are talking about. Read the answer given by School Board member Bill Buckingham when asked if she could explain what ID is: "Back through time, something [~] molecules, amoeba, whatever [~] evolved into the complexities of life we have now" (which sounds to me a lot like evolution!).

Second, there is a recurrent claim in this controversy that ID is an alternative "explanation" for the history and diversity of life on earth. But since all the theory says is "soomebody (God, really, wink wink) did it" in what perverse sense does this represent an explanation of anything? If I ask you to explain how the Eiffel Tower was built, and your answer is simply "Eiffel did it" you haven't answered my question at all (though at least you have a clear idea of who the designer is, which is much more than ID proponents are willing to admit!).

Ray Mummert, a town resident frustrated by the controversy and media attention, is reported by ABC as saying: "They've made a lot of accusations that are just generalizations: If you believe in creationism, you're a nonthinking person." Well, Mr. Mummert, you're pretty darn close to the truth, at least this time!

Harvard and gender issues, when everybody is (likely) wrong

Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:20:52 GMT

It was interesting (and a bit amusing) to see the controversy over the remarks made by Harvard's President Lawrence Summers that one reason why women do not excel in science as much as men do may be that there are innate differences between the sexes.

This actually happens to be my field of professional research (genotype-environment interactions), so I feel somewhat qualified in commenting on it. The reason this is amusing is that both sides are very likely wrong. Summers cannot substantiate his claims, because the necessary experimental research on genotype-environment interactions in humans simply cannot be done (we can't breed people at will and then grow them under controlled environments). Moreover, even if there are genetic differences between genders in some cognitive abilities, this doesn't mean they cannot be overcome by changes in the (social) environment: e.g., phenylketonuria, a genetic disease that causes severe mental retardation because of the inability to metabolize a common aminoacid, can be entirely prevented, simply by avoiding to intake sodas and other drinks and foods that contain phenylalanine.

On the other hand, the outrage by some people present at the speech, as well as in the press, is equally misguided: of course there are plenty of genetic differences between men and women (in case you haven't noticed, just look a bit closer at some of our obvious anatomic features :-) and surely some of them carry over into cognitive traits (which, after all, depend on the brain, itself a complex result of genotype-environment interactions that occur during development).

What is disturbing, of course, is that the leader of such a highly respected academic institution would go public with such simplistic statements that would cause an undergraduate in an introductory biology course to fail an exam... Then again, Summers is an economist, what does he know about biology?

well, I was kidding, but...

Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:44:02 GMT

The other day I jokingly suggested that President Bush should start a faith-based anti-missile initiative (actually, the idea was originally Richard Dawkins'). Well, apparently the Russians had already done something similar, by building a whole department devoted to fight "psychic influences" on their beloved leaders (Boris Yeltsin, for example).

While the current no-nonsense Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has apparently abolished the department, the Pravda reports that many Russian "experts" in psychic matters are worried because they heard that the Americans have developed "weapons of mass manipulation" (I kid you not!) that could be used against the former Soviet block. (The US has in fact had such weapons for a long time, they are called TV commercials, some of the best ones are tested during an annual event called "the Superbowl".)

This would be funny if it weren't for the fact that some of the world's "leaders" are wasting so much time and money on utter nonsense. Some leadership indeed.

the myth of balanced treatment

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:27:33 GMT

I guess I'm still thinking about the stupidity of last night's episode of "Boston Legal" (see previous posting) and its inane treatment of the evolution-creation controversy. Part of the problem, seems to me, is that Americans are very sensitive to "fair" or "equal" treatment of people and issues. While this attitude is generally commendable, and it should certainly be applied to people, the matter becomes more complicated when it comes to certain issues.

Should we have a fair and balance treatment of the theory that the earth is flat? No. Why? Because it is downright stupid, given what we know about planets and the universe. Sometimes people are simply wrong about something, and it makes no sense to be "balanced" and to propose a middle ground: the earth isn't flat, and there is no viable middle position. The same is true for intelligent design: it isn't science, and there is no philosophically intermediate position between science and religion.

shame on Boston Legal

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 04:07:42 GMT

Ouch! Just finished watching the ABC show "Boston Legal" and saw Candice Bergen defending Intelligent Design in a courtroom as a reasonable, scientific alternative to evolution (with, ironically, original Star Trek-heart throbbing captain William Shatner at her side!). The judge in the case sounded like the ideal mouthpiece for the ID crowd, fortunately very different from the real life judge who recently behaved much more sensibly in a real courtroom in Georgia.

The fictional judge managed to string together an incredible amount of nonsense in a few phrases toward the end of the show, suggesting that the US was established as a Christian nation (it was not, as any serious historian will testify), that lawsuits to remove nativity scenes from public grounds are "ludicruous" (they are not, given the obvious violation of the separation of Church and State), and that scientists are dogmatic when they claim that intelligent design isn't a possible "explanation" of life on earth (they don't claim that, they just say that it isn't a scientific explanation, and therefore it doesn't belong to a science class). As most real-life Americans do, the fictional judge completely confused science and scientific evidence on one hand with belief -- even majority belief -- on the other: it is undeniable that most Americans believe in a god, but this is irrelevant to the teaching of evolution, since science doesn't work by democratic vote!

Wow, it's hard to imagine a worst service to public understanding of both science and religion than tonight's episode of Boston Legal. Shame on whoever wrote the silly episode.

creation, evolution, and the nature of science

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:23:24 GMT

Well, here is yet another defeat for creationists, this time handed out by a federal judge whose understanding of science is better than that of many science teachers (at least in Cobb County, Georgia!). Despite the subtly biased reporting by CNN (notice that the creationist position is detailed at the end of the article, which contributes to making a more lasting impression on the reader), the issue is clear: to claim the of evolution is "just" a theory, not a fact, is to play on the difference between the technical and common meanings of the word "theory" (a well substantiated body of general statements about nature in the first case, a more or less arbitrary hunch in the second case), thus favoring a particular religious interpretation of what ought to be taught in public schools and how.

Also notice that, contrary to an apparently impossible to eradicate creationist belief, the theory (in the technical sense) of evolution is most definitely NOT a theory of how life originated. The latter is a matter for biophysics and biochemistry, not evolutionary biology. Evolution (in the neo-Darwinian sense) started after the origin of life on earth, and cannot therefore possibly be invoked to explain such origin. Nor do scientists ever use the theory for that purpose!

Why not a faith-based missile defense initiative?

Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:40:44 GMT

Here is more evidence that Bush is trying to turn the US into a Christian nation (and, no, it was never meant to be that way, beginning from the Founding Fathers!). It is so obvious that "faith-based" initiatives are bluntly crossing the line separating Church and State that I'm actually astounded that the ACLU or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have not already filed lawsuits against it (though they are keeping a close watch).

At any rate, as I believe Richard Dawkins once suggested, if Bush is so convinced that the US is God's chosen nation, why not save billions and start a faith-based missile defense initiative? Or, along similar lines, just pray that we find Osama bin Laden, rather than actually hunt for him? Of course, Bush's prayers to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have not be answered by the Creator. Could it be that He favors the axis of evil instead?

College course on UFOs?

Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:48:41 GMT

OK, this is hitting bottom for an academic institution: Santiago University is offering a course on "Unexplainable Air Phenomena" (if they are unexplainable, not just unexplained, what are we going to learn about them?), more commonly referred to as UFOs.

Note the quote from the director of the course: "There is something happening out there and we don't know what it is." Yup, that pretty much sums it up!

Global climate change, more evidence...

Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:41:19 GMT

Climate Change Dessicating the Planet, Researchers Conclude [Scientific American]

Here is another important piece of scientific evidence that we are screwing with the world's climate, and that the effects are rapid and catastrophic. But of course the Bush administration will keep saying that there is still discussion among scientists (true, there always is discussion among scientists, it's the nature of science), and that therefore we ought to wait for further evidence.

The problem with this apparently "reasonable" attitude is that the likely consequences of waiting too long may be both catastrophic and irreversible. A much more reasonable course of action is the so-called precautionary principle, according to which the stakes are so high that it is better to take action now -- at some economic cost -- rather than wait and pay much more dearly later. Unfortunately, of course, "now" is within an electoral cycle, "later" is way outside of it...

It's like smoking and cancer: you may think that the link between the two is based on "just" a correlation, but wouldn't it be better to give up a bit of pleasure now rather than risk facing a horrible death later? The choice is ours (or is it?).