the evolving mind

This just in: NASA’s Cassini space probe has found no evidence of gods in our solar system. Hmm. I wonder why that is….

Why is science seemingly hostile to religion? (Any hostility exists in how the results are received.) Because science refuses to place a finger on the scale when weighing the evidence for gods. Honest science, anyway. Objectivity doesn’t favor the existence of gods. The inkblot of subjective experience, however — well hell, anything can be made of that.

Yes, I’m an atheist. No, don’t take my word for it. Look at the evidence. Good evidence. And what you will find is that Saturn is devoid of evidence of a god. And a quadrillion other things are likewise devoid of gods and/or their influence.

Speaking of devoid of gods, I invite you to check out the latest godless blogging carnival: Carnival of the Godless, No. 136 – Revolutionary Communist Edition!

—

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: atheism, religion, science

How does the saying go? . . . A technology sufficiently advanced (above some current baseline) is indistinguishable from magic. Or something.

Get a load of this near magic: ‘Perfect’ Liquid Hot Enough to Be Quark Soup

Recent analyses from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), a 2.4-mile-circumference “atom smasher” at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory, establish that collisions of gold ions traveling at nearly the speed of light have created matter at a temperature of about 4 trillion degrees Celsius — the hottest temperature ever reached in a laboratory, about 250,000 times hotter than the center of the Sun. [bold added]

Holy smokes!

Perhaps one of the things that would make a technology sufficiently advanced as to appear magical is a lack of an explanatory mechanism for the observation/event. Lacking an explanation, something just doesn’t seem natural. It’s super – natural. It’s above current understanding.

From early in the Bible to late you will find associated with the supernatural things that confound.

“Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? (Exodus 15:11).

Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. (Acts 2:43)

So what does it take to transform a miraculous/supernatural event into a something religious? A crucial social element. A responsible agent from another world or with other-worldy powers. And perhaps this agent must be perceived to be related to you and/or have a vested interest in you. Maybe the agent has to be responsible for your being and/or well-being.

So what’s the difference between a scientist and a priest? The scientist revels in tests and explanations, attributing his deeds to things fully natural. The priest doesn’t. The priest speaks of a special agent — a god — from a special realm and into gaps in the known injects the work of this god. The scientist doesn’t.

Technorati Links: religion, science

xkcd is my current favorite comic. The writing is great, and the stick figures, somewhat surprisingly, are a definite plus. And the topics: fantastically suited to those at the area of the intellectual bell curve not customarily catered to. Science, philosophy, meta-cognition of human social and emotional quirks . . . .

Later today I’m going to be clicking over to the most recent version of the blog carnival, Scientia Pro Publica. Number 21, Darwin’s 201st Birthday Edition, has been posted. Will this carnival become my current favorite? It could. I love the idea behind it. And it certainly has potential. What I hope to find is an abundance of is smart writing on truly educational topics.

No, no NASCAR, no celebrity gossip.

Was that elitist of me? Frankly, I don’t give a damn. Our culture puts such things as athletic ability on a pedestal, but intellectual ability, well, don’t flaunt that. It’s in poor taste.

This is getting close to a rant, so I better put the brakes on . . .

Technorati Links: blog carnival, cognitive elites

When I first read the article title, my reaction was, “What were they thinking?”

Marijuana Ineffective as an Alzheimer’s Treatment

Giving elderly folk with Alzheimer’s a bong and telling them to “have at it”? I can just imagine them walking the streets, even more confused.

Alright. Sorry. I’m obviously in a Friday state of mind. This was science, so there was no bong smoking by senior citizens. It was an experiment. On mice actually. And here’s what happened:

Over a period of several weeks, some of the Alzheimer’s-afflicted mice were given varying doses of HU210 — also known as cannabinoids — which is 100 to 800 times more potent than the marijuana compounds. Their memory was then tested.

While previous research had suggested marijuana may help alleviate symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, the results of this test were . . . null. No benefits. And some detrimental effects.

A member of the research team said,

“As scientists, we begin every study hoping to be able to confirm beneficial effects of potential therapies, and we hoped to confirm this for the use of medical marijuana in treating Alzheimer’s disease.”

Yes, hope for an effective treatment for a horrible disease. Seems that scientists do have hearts.

Technorati Links: Alzheimer's, marijuana, science

Some religion-friendly thinkers claim that science and religion differ on their basic presumptions. Science has one set, and religion has another. And because we mention them in the same breath, they must be equal.

BS. That’s like claiming all cake recipes are equivalent, because they all contain ingredients. No way. The value of a recipe is in the taste-test.

Similarly, the value of a worldview can be tested. Does it really help us know anything? Or is it just a bunch of hot air?

The beauty of science is that it is ultimately pragmatic. It begins with no pre-conceived musts. What works, works.

Scientists tend to reject religion not because it conflicts with their cherished paradigm. They reject it for this simple reason: It doesn’t work.

[cartoon thanks to http://www.jesusandmo.net/]

Technorati Links: philosophy, religion, science

A huge pet peeve of mine is stupid writing. The most common form I notice is headlines with “clever” wordplay, but if you watch local news you will be flooded with the same kind of prose. Trite puns here, silly metaphors there, and clichés coming at you like chocolates down an assembly line toward a harried Lucille Ball . . . I don’t watch local news and a big reason is the lame writing.

After the break, a real alligator story with teeth . . . . Local humane society worker saves furry friends from sad end . . . .

Egads.

My peeve has motivated me to start a series of awards I’ll call not the Tonys but “the Groanys.” The criteria for nomination: science writing so pathetic it makes you groan, boom, it’s in the running for the year-end awards that will be determined by reader vote.

If you encounter anything Groany-worthy, please feel free to nominate it by sending it my way. I’m going to stick to science writing because that’s what I read the most, and because that’s where I find the use of dumb writing most egregious.

THE GROANYS: RECOGNIZING EXCELLENCE IN STUPID SCIENCE WRITING SINCE FEBRUARY, 2010

The get things going, here is the first nomination . . . . drum roll please . . . this headline discovered yesterday over at ScienceDaily:

‘Zen’ Bats Hit Their Target by Not Aiming at It

Groan. Zen bats?! Oh please. Those bats are so enlightened, the fly by cosmic intuition. What, did the writer think that if you add “Zen” to anything it automatically makes it more mysterious and interesting?

And actually, the title is misleading: the bats do indeed aim. But what they do — that info buried down in the prose beneath the bogus intro, in the real science part — is alternately aim their echolocation “sound beam” to one side of their target and then the other. This helps them to better gauge “change in the relative position of the target to the bat.”

What the hell does Zen have to do with that? It seems quite advanced and strategic to me. Is that Zen? Here’s the Google dictionary definition of the term:

Zen or Zen Buddhism is a form of the Buddhist religion that concentrates on meditation rather than on studying religious writings.

And this element from Wikipedia:

Zen emphasizes experiential prajña-, particularly as realized in the form of meditation, in the attainment of enlightenment. As such, it de-emphasizes theoretical knowledge in favor of direct, experiential realization through meditation and dharma practice.

Hmm. Maybe the bats do their meditating while hanging upside down. But not in a full-lotus position. And maybe they contemplate the meaning of this koan: What is the sound of one wing flapping?

Such a shame. Interesting science news belittled with a stupid headline. What can you do but groan?

Nominate it for an award! Officially recognize the stupidity and draw attention to it.

Care to join me in celebrating lame writing in the sciences?

Technorati Links: science writing

Okay, maybe I was in a bit of an irritated mood when I read the following headline. An earlier event must have put a thorn in the paw of my intellect and then wherever I stepped I experienced unpleasantness.

Scientists Show How Brain Tumors Outsmart Drugs

I didn’t know tumors had brains. How else could they outsmart drugs?

Am I being too literal? I certainly don’t shy away from using metaphoric language myself. See this very post for examples. (Can headlines be stupid? Can you really get a thorn in your intellect?)

I think what is at issue is the propensity for some science writers to personify (make willful agents of) elements of nature and thus make them more appealing to human social instincts. While in many cases this can be a harmless practice, my concern is that by catering to these instincts we contribute to a misunderstanding of the universe.

So how is my use of metaphorical language different, if it is? First, degree of separation. I am not introducing supposedly hard science to the world, via a news release. My blog posts are further downstream — to once again resort to metaphoric language. And when writing about the actual science, as opposed to my analysis of it, I try to shy away from potentially misleading use of metaphor.

No, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to hit the road.

Damn, it’s just so easy to resort to figures of speech.

Technorati Links: science, writing

Well ,break out the champagne and make a toast to chromosomes! Why? Read the headline yourself:

There may be a ‘party’ in your genes

Oh no they di – int!

Is that good science writing or stupid? You can guess my vote.

But wait. Maybe it’s not as bad as first comes across. The first sentence helps to explain, if not excuse, the silly word play:

Genetics play a pivotal role in shaping how individual’s identify with political parties , according to an article in a recent issue of Political Research Quarterly, the official journal of the Western Political Science Association.

Still.

Technorati Links: science, writing

Scientists test hypotheses. An alt-med hypothesis that has been circulating for years (and a number of corporations have greatly benefited from via profits) is that the herbal supplement Gingko biloba, can help maintain full mental capacities as individuals age. Even help treat dementia. Which would be nice.

But recent research strongly suggests . . . it doesn’t.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with over 3000 subjects conducted over several years (it rarely gets better than this), the researchers found:

Older adults who used the herbal supplement Ginkgo biloba for several years did not have a slower rate of cognitive decline compared to adults who received placebo. [source]

Mind you, I have nothing against herbs. If it was discovered that one helped for a condition I had, I wouldn’t hesitate to take it. I would prefer it come in a standardized, concentrated dose with all the extraneous stuff removed — i.e., it was purified into a “drug.” In the case of Gingko biloba, I honestly feel disappointed that it doesn’t seem to work. I want treatments to genuinely work and thus be able to help people as much as they help the corporations that produce and sell them.

Notice I said, “genuinely work.” That’s where good science comes in. And in the case of this one remedy in one research protocol, an herb got burned.

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, health

(Recycled material: I’m in holiday/travel mode. This material first posted on Dec. 24, 2008)

A Supernatural Assumption

A research finding released four days ago bore this headline: God Or Science? A Belief In One Weakens Positive Feelings For The Other.

As you might guess, I have doubts about the wording of the title and the news release itself, which starts like this:

A person’s unconscious attitudes toward science and God may be fundamentally opposed, researchers report, depending on how religion and science are used to answer “ultimate” questions such as how the universe began or the origin of life.

The problem — and its no quibble — consists of not defining which deity they are referring to, for there are and have been hundreds of them, thereby perpetuating the assumption that there is one deity that all people recognize.

C’mon! Study some history and anthropology and world religions. Inject some objectivity into the piece. Using the word “god” both capitalized and without a preceding article not only perpetuates assumptions but it also compromises science. In this case, what god, precisely, does belief in weaken feelings for science?

A much more scientific wording would make explicit that the “belief in” question was not about the god Zeus or Ra or XYZ, but no doubt a generic, monotheistic version of the Abrahamic tradition.

The first sentence of the final paragraph states,

The most obvious implication of the research is that “to be compatible, science and religion need to stick to their own territories, their own explanatory space,” Preston said.

That’s an odd sort of compatibility. Sort of like saying a husband and wife need to stay in their own rooms to be compatible.

Good science precisely defines its variables and tests its claims about the universe. Popular religion does neither. It is a poster-child for bad science.

If we want to best understand the universe we should stick to science even if it means shredding religious claims and assumptions.

One god? By name alone.

Technorati Links: critical thinking, religion, science