the evolving mind

Check out this headline — one that is sure to make the woo-meisters get tingly all-over:

Wrist Acupuncture Or Acupressure Prevents Nausea From Anesthesia, Review Finds

Wow. A meta-analysis from the Chinese University of Hong Kong has concluded that stimulating the P6 meridian point with acupuncture or acupressure “prevents” nausea. Woohoo! Acupuncture works!

Or does it? In the last third of the news release you will find the actual scientific finding. And it ain’t nearly what it’s been trumpeted to be.

The Cochrane reviewers found that compared to sham treatment, stimulation of the P6 acupoint can significantly reduce the risk of nausea and vomiting after surgery, with few side effects. Lee said that “for 100 people, of whom 80 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given sham treatment, about 25 people would benefit from P6 stimulation and 75 would not.”

Huh? What? Okay, clarifying the numbers leads to this: 20% of subjects did not feel nauseous when given a “sham” treatment. When treated with acupuncture or acupressure, 25% of people did not feel nauseous.

Woohoo! Stimulating the P6 point is 5% more effective than a sham treatment!

Um. Stop the presses. Or, if you do roll them, in the very least, add may or can before the “prevent” in the title.

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, critical thinking, language

A new, super-precise clock . . . ah, mechanism, I guess . . . has been developed. And it got me thinking about the nature of time. Here’s the news-

The new techniques make JILA’s strontium clock 50 percent more accurate than the results reported last year, so that it now would neither gain nor lose 1 second in more than 300 million years.

First, a tangential thought: If a clock “loses” a second of time, where does that lost unit of time “go”? You might not want to think too hard about it. You could lose some sleep. And you might not want to ponder where the lost sleep goes to as well.

Second, the whole topic of quantum-events-based clocks is, to me, like a metaphysical scab. Makes my mind itch and I feel there is a protruding edge. But pick at it too much and you might lose some sleep. Why? Because an atomic clock measures time without motion — at least motion in the sense of our classical understanding.

Most clocks do rely on motion to measure the events and generate the units we call time. A sundial relies upon the motion of a shadow; a pocket watch upon the motion of springs and gears; a digital wristwatch upon the vibrations of a quartz crystal. But we can’t really say an atomic clock relies upon motion to generate units of time. There is instead an oscillation between quantum states without any apparent motion between. First state one, then state two. Never state one-and-a-half.

It is said that time flows. Which implies motion. But what does it do on the quantum level? And what does it mean in terms of the nature of time? It could mean a whole lot.

Technorati Links: metaphysics, time

The plants in our goldfish pond are going gonzo. While non-water plants in our yard seem to be in a second gear of growth, the pond plants have hit overdrive. Lily pads galore and even some blossoms. (The above pic from last year seems naked by comparison.) I wonder if it has anything to do with the temperature-moderating affects of water. The greater mass of a water environment — liquid vs. gas — is less influenced by passing drops in temperature. During the many overnight freezes we experienced this winter the pond never froze over. Not at all. A warmer environment speeds up the chemical reactions growth depends upon. But I’m sure there is more to it than that.

Technorati Links: biology

From the Onion:

Technorati Links: NASA

What makes science soft or hard? The temperature it is served at, of course! Soft science is all warm and melty, while cold scientists doing hard science work in refrigerated labs and never crack a smile. To do soft science you can use a spoon. To do hard science you need a very sharp knife. Or maybe even a laser.

Seriously, a blog post by Massimo Pigliucci got me thinking about the topic. In the intro to his piece Massimo included this quote by John R. Platt:

“Scientists these days tend to keep up a polite fiction that all science is equal.”

That line was written half a century ago. And I find truth in it today. In fact, even a couple podcasts I listen to regularly –one categorized as skepticism, the other science — include a quiz/puzzle feature where you must guess which of the three or four items are science and which are not. As if there is only science on one hand and not-science on the other.

No. There are all sorts of science out there, from weaker to stronger and from more empirical to more speculative.

In his piece Massimo points out that, historically, one of the ways used to differentiate hard science from soft was speed of progress. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. So allow me to cut to the chase and share how I differentiate hard and soft science, or as I prefer to speak of it: stronger science and weaker.

To me the quality of science is not speed of progress or even field of study. It is primarily an issue of how directly and precisely variables can be measured. My field, psychology, tends to be a weaker science because things such as anger are difficult to precisely define and impossible to directly measure (at least the subjective component).

Weaker science tends to have fuzzy variables that can and will lead to exaggeration and misinterpretation of findings.

Perhaps a simple way to put it is this way: Stronger science means more data, better quality data, and less speculation. Weak science means less data, worse quality data, and more speculation.

But that’s just my two cents.

Technorati Links: critical thinking, language

Homeopathic remedies work! Be prepared for the woo-peddlers to make that chant. New research have provided them with amo. Into CANCER no less! Wow. If homeopathy can help with cancer, imagine what else it can do!

But hold on a minute. What exactly was the study and what did they find?

In Homeopathic Medicines: Can They Help Relieve Side-Effects Of Cancer Therapy? we learn:

“We found preliminary data that suggest there may be benefit associated with two homeopathic medicines in specific circumstances.”

Woohoo! Drop the balloons! Strike up the band! Homeopathy works! Why aren’t you now a believer? What? Why?

I’ll tell you why.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, critical thinking

Any idea what the above is? Hints: I found it in my backyard. The dogs fear it in this state, and shouldn’t. In its original state, they should. At x60.

Answer, and an additional pic, below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscope, puzzle

Maybe its me. But the stupid use of language causes lights to flash in my head and a siren to go off. Maybe I should ignore them. Who, after all, elected me chief of the language police?

Here’s the latest perp I have apprehended — a science article titled, Power Of Imagination Is More Than Just A Metaphor.

Yes, the study did show that subjects who “used their imaginations” — envisioning they were holding an object in their hands — had different visual behavior than those that envisioned having their hands clasped behind their backs. They looked more closely.

So the altered behavior of “looking more closely” is the power that imagination had. Thus the “power of imagination is more than just a metaphor.”

I’m almost breaking into laughter, I find that so ridiculous. Do you?

Of COURSE “the power of imagination” is entirely metaphor BECAUSE those words stand for something else. What do they stand for? That, in contrast, is the science part. In other words, neither “imagination” nor “power” were directly measured.

Maybe a donut and second cup of coffee will make me feel better about all this criminal use of language. And yes, criminal is a metaphor.

Technorati Links: language, science

Here’s the science -

Brain imaging showed that the volunteers needed six to eight seconds to fully respond to stories of virtue or social pain.

Here’s the semi-recklessly speculative title to the news report -

Can Twitter Make You Amoral? Rapid-fire Media May Confuse Your Moral Compass

Say What? The study had absolutely nothing to do with Twitter or Twitter-like media. But I guess it did have “extraordinary implications for the human perception of events in a digital communication environment.” And I can certainly appreciate intelligent speculation, in the context of speculation, such as this sentence -

[F]ast-paced digital media tools may direct some heavy users away from traditional avenues for learning about humanity, such as engagement with literature or face-to-face social interactions.

“Can Twitter make you amoral?” Temporarily? Via chronic use? In some contexts? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s quite a speculation.

Does the “rapid-fire media may confuse your moral compass?” Confuse? Short-change or short-circuit? Undercut? The point of the study, and in interesting point it is — if you ask me — is that the social emotions of admiration and compassion take quite a bit of time to develop, relative to fear and anger and other responses. Up to ten seconds.

That finding MIGHT have profound implications in a number of areas. Might brief cell phone conversations short-circuit moral behavior? Could e-mail conversations and text messages potentially disrupt social feelings and/or relationships? Maybe. But a whole lot of maybe does not amount to any amount of hard science.

Technorati Links: emotion, sociology, technology

Videos are fun and easy. You can watch one without really paying attention. Reading requires more effort. I prefer reading.

If you, too, enjoy reading, may I suggest you check out the 35th Humanist Symposium? This edition’s host is Psychodiva.

Although there aren’t any moving pictures, there are a few of the still kind. And some thought-provoking posts.