the evolving mind

(Recycled material – first posted on 9/4/2008)

One of my favorite Einstein quotes goes like this: Science is the refinement of everyday thinking. When we think more scientifically, we typically do one or all of these four things: 1. use more data, 2. use higher quality data, 3. be more precise in our use of language, and 4. be careful to avoid logical errors (for more on this topic, see my page, Elements of Science.)

Some scientists and educated others insist on applying more refined thinking without exception. I proudly consider myself one of them. We refuse to cordon off a topic as sacred and thus off-limits, or as belonging to its own special realm. We do not recognize a non-overlapping magisteria, a la Stephen Jay Gould.

The supposed invisible line that separates science from religion, keeping them safely at arm’s length and helping to maintain the illusion that both are valid means of “knowing,” is a bogus line. Religion makes claims of knowledge (the world was created in 7 days, eating pork is an abomination), as does science. But what truly distinguishes the two is what type of information is considered valid and reliable.

For religion, ancient texts and ”faith” and “spiritual experiences,” (euphemisms for more mundane mental phenomena, no doubt) provide a keyhole to another realm. For informed scientists, these types of information are highly suspect. Change a person’s social environment (their culture) and/or change the activity of their brain via drugs and/or magnetic fields, etc., and . . . presto, different experiences and conclusions.

Those who defend the bogus line separating science and religion have accused the opposition of being blinded by not Mormonism nor Buddhism nor Judaism, but “Scientism.” As if science were equivalently viewed by its practitioners as sacred and inerrant.

Ironically, and as a point-blank blow to the balls of the apologist argument, scientists, and truly critical thinkers alike, spend most of their mental energies analyzing and “attacking” . . . science. Scientists are always attempting to dismantling their own fields and methods to build better versions. That is why you may have heard the expression, “science is self-correcting.” It is a truly democratic/liberal process, supported by an ever-changing mass of minds busily refining the tools and conclusions of their trade.

Can they same be said for religion?

Technorati Links: freethought, science

Where is the line between “the natural world” and the human-created non-natural world? Of course, when people speak about the natural world, the connotations are usually positive, eco-friendly, maybe even more “spiritual.” The man-made world, on the other hand, is unnatural, sometimes toxic, out of balance (where’s my scale) etc.

When we encounter an ant mound or bird’s nest, we consider this “the natural world.” Why not the human house? Neanderthal cave — natural. Is a buffalo-hide teepee part of the natural world? A skyscraper certainly isn’t. I guess. What about a log cabin? Just where is the line? Personally, I don’t see one.

As for the above mystery substance for you to identify, the two paragraph short rant was a clue. As is this: the magnification is x60. And yes, human hands have touched and fashioned it. But it is natural. Answer below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscope, photography, puzzle

[Still in travel mode -- and so I offer something  I wrote a few years ago, but never posted/published.]

The first time I encountered a UFO, I was fourteen years old. It came whizzing toward me fast and low and hit me in the knee. The collision with my knee brought the unidentified flying object to a dead halt. Unidentified it was no longer. I’m sad to report that it was not a Roswell weather balloon. That wouldn’t have hurt as much. When the tears cleared from my eyes, I discovered I had been struck by a Dr. Scholl’s wooden clog, size 7. It was my sister’s. The left shoe had been propelled at me by my younger brother, with whom I had been fighting.
My knee was bruised for weeks. UFOs can really be dangerous.

The second time I encountered a UFO I was on a backpacking trip in the mountains of Vermont. A friend of mine, Walt, and I were making our way along a soggy trail, deep in the forest. The trees were dripping, and the stones that punctuated the trail were damp and slippery. Walt had recently taken up the hobby of moss and fungi identification. As we walked he kept his eye out for new species.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: humor, paranormal, skepticism

One of the reasons I like to travel is to “refresh” my brain. Encounter the same stimuli over and over again, and neurons respond less strongly. Old news is no news.

So I get away, and when I return old news is new again. Of course, by traveling I immerse myself in completely new stimuli as well. And that’s what makes it exciting.

The above photo is of the Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge. It’s a half hour drive from my home. After nearly a week in a desert region, while I see it with a refreshed brain?

Technorati Links: photography, psychology

(traveling mode recycled post – from October 8, 2008)

Sometimes it can be difficult, when reading an article about a recent study and not the study itself, to determine whether the writing of the news release / the reporting or the science itself was a piece of junk.

The recent ScienceDaily article, Overbearing Parents Foster Obsessive Children, New Study Finds, reflects both. And this is unfortunate, for I have found other sites, such as PsychCentral and Medical News Today, that (mis?)inform their readers a new truth has been discovered.

Check out the description of the actual research methods:

Mageau focused on 588 musicians and athletes between the ages of six and 38 who practice their hobby at different levels (beginner, intermediate and expert). Mageau used a Likert-type scale to measure how parents support the autonomy of their child.

She also evaluated the psychological well being of the child regarding their hobby, which in this case was piano, saxophone, skiing or swimming.

Likert-scale . . . evaluated the psychological well being regarding a hobby . . .

Talk about fuzzy variables and indirect measures. Any conclusions should be stated in an overtly tentative fashion. Parenting may . . . study suggests . . .

The researcher provides this explanation (interpretation of her results, or was it her pet hunch heading into the study?):

Youngsters with a harmonious passion had parents or an entourage that supported them, while those with an obsessive passion were raised in an oppressive environment.

What the heck is a harmonious passion? One that sings in four parts? How can I get hold of a harmonious passion meter? Do I set the whole subject on it, or is it more of a probe, inserted directly into . . . ?

Okay, the social sciences are rife with complexity. That said, in any field taking an inch worth of data and running an mile with it should raise flags.

But who cares about data?

I do. As should any critical thinker.

In a better study (i.e., less junky) I encountered this headline: Maternal Depression And Controlling Behavior Associated With Increased Stress Response In Infants.

“Associated.” A much more reasonable (justified) announcement. And consider this ‘graph in contrast to the above:

A new study being published in Biological Psychiatry on September 15th suggests an association between a history of depression in the mothers, a particular style of mothering, “maternal overcontrol”, and increased stress reactivity of their infants.

“Suggests.” Again, more reasonable. The lead author is quoted as saying:

Practically, the open question is that of the long-term effects: are these infants at increased risk for psychological or physical stress-related illnesses later in life. If so, why?

Hear hear! The results of one study never provide us with a complete truth. Instead, they offer suggestions and invite further research.

Oh sure, it is exciting to jump to conclusions. But we do so at the risk of error. And, if we happen to be holding a megaphone, of misleading others.

Technorati Links: skepticism

It is established science fiction that “you are what you eat.” (Yesterday I was a whole lot of tortilla and green chile. What will I be today?)

Would the saying, “you are what you blog” be any more true? If it is, I guess that would make me an atheistic, scientifically-minded, philosophizing, humanistic liberal. Or something. What about you?

If you care to be more of any of the following, follow the link:

Humanistic (Humanist Symposium #43).

Philosophical (Philosophers’ Blog Carnival).

Liberal (Carnival of the Liberals #97).

Enjoy! I will. Because that’s who I am. (Maybe.)

Technorati Links: blog carnivals

This vaulted ceiling in a Sicilian cathedral is pretty impressive — though not to my tastes. I have speculated before as to why the “up” direction is considered heavenly.* Is the height of the ceilings and their extravagant decoration a reflection of the builder’s mythology? Is the design meant to persuade all who enter of the legitimacy of the house beliefs?

I now wonder if a superstitious subterranean species of equivalent engineering and architectural abilities would design a place of worship with ornately decorated floors. Or something.

—

* See: http://evolvingmind.info/blog/2008/08/why-godliness-is-up/; http://www.floridafreethinkers.com/726/the-hot-air-balloon-of-spirituality/

Technorati Links: freethought, religion

(recycled post from 8/24/08 – I’m in travel mode)

The believers in Intelligent Design better be closing their eyes. More and more research is being conducted that supports evolutionary theory to the very fringe of the shadow of a doubt.

No such thing as “half an eye”? Well, actually there is. Thanks to recent advances in molecular biology, scientists are discovering the precursors to a whole host of organs and tissues. Take the nerve cell. In a recent news release over at ScienceDaily, Tracing Origins Of Critical Step In Animal Evolution: The Development Of Nerves, we learn that researchers have

traced the evolution of the nerve cell by looking for pre-cursors in, of all places, the marine sponge.

Somewhat ironically,

“Sponges have one of the most ancient lineages and don’t have nerve cells,” Professor Degnan said.

What they found in sponges was the “building blocks for nerves.” How did they know? They TESTED it.

“But what was really cool is we took some of these genes and expressed them in frog and flies and the sponge gene became functional – the sponge gene directed the formation of nerves in these more complex animals.”

I once heard an anti-evolutionist sputter in a debate something about it being irrational to believe that “the human being is related to a carrot.” Poor guy, the sponge in his brain was all wet. Evolution is irrational only to the uninformed.

Either that or Gawd surely works in convoluted ways.

Technorati Links: creationism, evolution

Care to graze from a sampling of skeptical blog posts? Why not check out the 120th edition of the Skeptics’ Circle, hosted by Pro-Science. You just might run into something tasty.

This morning and the next coming bunch of days I’m away from my sandy, home soil. Where I’m at the bare earth is a rust red and it clumps together. At least at the lower elevations.

The above NASA photo is of truly foreign soil. Those are the front wheels of the Mars explorer “Spirit” (an oxymoronic name for a high-tech scientific instrument, if you ask me). I’m partly enticed by the photo, imagining what it would be like to hike that rounded ridge to the hilltop. But seeing I couldn’t breath the atmosphere (95% CO2), and the average temperature is about -67 degrees Fahrenheit, maybe I’ll stick to hiking in the desert region currently outside my window.

Technorati Links: NASA, nature