the evolving mind

Is religion a bad thing? While there are some individuals who would immediately answer that question with a yes or no, more thoughtful people tend to pause. Fewer still go to the length of questioning the question before proceeding.

As an aspiring 360-degree skeptic (that term somewhat of a mal-phemism for “critical thinker”) I try to question everything. And I have found that the best place to start is to question the wording of an inquiry itself. As for “Is religion a bad thing?” — that is one sloppy question. Religion can mean one of a great number of things. People will talk past one another when they pick different things denoted/connoted by the word. And bad? Bad how?

As someone who isn’t particularly fond of religion, I nonetheless welcome research into the matter. Above all, I want to understand. So when a study such as the following is released, I pay attention.

Collective Religious Rituals, Not Religious Devotion, Spur Support For Suicide Attacks

In this fascinating bit of research, I learned that organized religion can provide a roof for individuals to participate in activities that encourage commitment to causes, even violent causes.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: behavior, belief

It is Sunday morning and I’m about to head out to hug some trees. So to speak. My wife and I have a small boat with a nearly silent, electric motor. We’re going to go hunting for gators, turtles, water snakes and all sorts of bird life. If I spot any, I’ll shoot them. With my camera.

Technorati Links: nature

Are antioxidants effective in combating disease and aging? Indeed, that is the question.

In one corner of recent research, we have Forget The Antioxidants? Researchers Cast Doubt On Role Of Free Radicals In Aging.

Their verdict -

For more than 40 years, the prevailing explanation of why we get old has been tied to what is called oxidative stress. This theory postulates that when molecules like free radicals, oxygen ions and peroxides build up in cells, they overwhelm the cells’ ability to repair the damage they cause, and the cells age….However, clinical trials have not shown that these treatments have statistically significant effects.

Good reasons for something to be true is one thing. Solid evidence is another. I’ll take evidence any day.

In another corner we have Dry Beans Inhibit Development Of Mammary Cancer.

In this good, solid animal-model experiment (rats) into legumes (dry beans) high in antioxidants, the researchers found -

Dry bean consumption from every market class reduced cancer incidence (number of animals with one tumor) and tumor number per animal compared to the control group. Cancer incidence was reduced from 95% in the control group to 67% in animals fed beans. The average number of malignant tumors was also reduced from 3.2 in the control group to 1.4 tumors per animal in the group fed bean.

Score one point for the antioxidants . . . but maybe not. The researchers also report -

No associations were observed between phenolic content, flavonoid content and antioxidant capacity with cancer among the bean market classes. These results clearly suggest that the anticancer activity in dry bean is not associated with seed color or antioxidant capacity.

Rats! (As in bummer!) I’m still holding out hope that my Costco multi-vitamin high in antioxidants provides some benefit. To me, and not just Costco and the manufacturer. But at this point, it is not looking good.

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, health

Can you identify the above? These are everywhere. Another hint: The first were an advance nearly as important as the wheel. Answer below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscope, puzzle

Many skeptics will — inadvertently perhaps — portray the world as if there are but two classes claims: scientific on one hand and on the other pseudoscience and superstition and total bunk of many varieties. Yet there exists more of a range. On one extreme: rock-solid science; on the other extreme: the rantings of certifiable lunatics. Most of what we encounter, however, lies in the vast middle. To my understanding, the things that influence where in the range a claim belongs include the quantity and quality of data the claim is based upon and the legitimacy of reasoning employed and the judiciousness of the conclusion.

As a skeptic I do not have two lights in my head: a green one for science and the stuff I like, a red for everything else. Instead, I have an active doubt meter. Most stuff I read — even science — will cause the meter to twitch. Other material makes the needle sway wildly. As did the science described with this title and attached article:

Science Suggests Access To Nature Is Essential To Human Health

My immediate reaction was, Sure, air and water and plant-based foodstuffs are all essential to our health. But then I began to wonder about the variables expressed in the title. Nature – that’s one huge variable. Human health – broad also. And the alleged relation between them – essential. What constitutes “essential”?

Would the article body clarify and convince me? Sadly not. It caused my doubt-meter to come alive.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: critical thinking, research

Like the majority of animals, chimpanzees solve more disputes by threat than by actual fighting.
- Jane Goodall (36)

Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: My anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, on man and beast, on the trees of the field and on the fruit of the ground, and it will burn and not be quenched. (Jeremiah 7:20)

Primate alphas rarely rely on actual aggression. Instead, they employ bluff and threat. These could be seen as derivatives and extensions of real physical attack. Rather than actual hitting, a raised arm will do. Eyes and emotions register the impact from a distance. Instead of shoving, trees are shaken, muscles flexed. Additionally, third parties can be the target of acts meant to send a message to others. In a sense, this is symbolic aggression and an advertisement about one’s ability to dominate. You.

Chimpanzees males throw objects, primarily sticks and stones, to “enhance” their charging displays.(37) Their aim is not to break bones, but to send a message: pay attention to me or you could get hurt.

Could get hurt. If. But if you bow down to me and obey, you will be spared my wrath.

As is obvious from my “Almighty Alpha” project, I believe the god of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament god, reflects apish concerns for dominance. If he had skin, my bet is the Bible god would be covered with fur.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: religion, status

Is it possible there is no ultimate reason for life? Well, it depends on how we define “reason.” A reason for something can imply intention and purpose. And while I can see those in the lives of individuals, I have trouble inferring reasons for the whole shebang. So to speak. Does that make my life poorer? I don’t think so. And what makes life rich is largely feelings. And even the life of say, the brooding French existentialist/atheist Jean-Paul Sartre — who famously wrote, “hell is other people”– is (was) rich in feelings.

Technorati Links: meaning, nature

I honestly prefer to say good things about the science I encounter. Yesterday I stepped in a fresh pile of research that should be scooped up and deposited out of the domain of serious science. The news release claimed,

If You’re Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too, Says Veterinary Study

The lead graph reads -

In a new, year-long University of Pennsylvania survey of dog owners who use confrontational or aversive methods to train aggressive pets, veterinary researchers have found that most of these animals will continue to be aggressive unless training techniques are modified.

What quantity and type of data did they base their conclusion on? A thirty item survey “completed by” 140 pet owners. The lead author errs when she says,

Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.

No, your little study demonstrated nada. Suggested, sure. Here is the problem: the study relied upon subjective reports by dog owners seeking assistance for their “problem” dogs. There may be all sorts of things going on that weren’t controlled for.

People who use aggressive techniques with dogs may be more inclined to adopt/purchase aggressive animals in the first place. It is also possible that more aggressive animals tend to elicit more aggressive attempts at training them by their owners. Etc. Without controls, a scientific finding might suggest possible relations between variables, but not demonstrate them.

Bad science! Sit. Stay. Good. Here’s a bone. Go chew on it.

Technorati Links: behavior, critical thinking

While I wouldn’t equate empathy with morality, I have a strong suspicion that the ability to emphasize is an essential building block for moral behavior if not thought.

Empathy – an emotional response that echoes the joy and pain of others, helping us to better understand them – is what best allows us to step into the shoes of another, so to speak. The sociopath has not twitch of pain when viewing another person in pain. He or she is “free” to act without compassion or remorse. It is perhaps thanks to empathy that people are able to feel and speak of not wanting to do unto others what  we would not want done to ourselves.

Species that exhibit signs of empathy live in social groups. Those that can better understand and work with others tend to better survive and pass on their genes. So this headline was no surprise to me -

Empathy Partly Based On Genes, Mouse Study Shows.

“Partly based”? That is putting it conservatively. Where else does a mouse gain its pro-social tendencies? From its holy book?

The all-important nitty-gritty of the research is fairly straightforward. And interesting.

In the study, a highly social strain of mice learned to associate a sound played in a specific cage with something negative simply by hearing a mouse in that cage respond with squeaks of distress. A genetically different mouse strain with fewer social tendencies did not learn any connection between the cues and the other mouse’s distress, showing that the ability to identify and act on another’s emotions may have a genetic basis.

Yes, learning will shape how and when we emphasize. But thanks to our genes, to the evolutionary process, that learning can occur.

Technorati Links: morality

Astronomy 101: What planet is that above? [Photo thanks to NASA.]

Identity and philosophical speculation about “being” below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: cosmos, NASA