More Eschaton 2012: “Wolverine and Lego sex”

Posted on December 10, 2012 by Veronica

Alejandro Bustos posted this fun picture and wrote an informative article on PZ Myers‘ talk on the role of chance in evolution:

“Photo courtesy Dunchaser on Flickr.”

Like many people, my understanding of evolution is based on a basic view of natural selection.

The child’s version goes something like this: If a specific trait gives a distinct advantage to a person, and that individual reproduces offspring, and this offspring in turn reproduces, then this powerful trait will spread in a population.

“This is how most people think about evolution,” said Prof. Myers, who teaches at the University of Minnesota Morris.

With his unique humour, Prof. Myers pointed to the comic book character Wolverine as a fictitious example. A simple view of evolution would state that Wolverine’s extraordinary powers give him a definitive advantage, and that natural selection would spread this trait among his offspring and, eventually, the population at large.

There is only one problem with this explanation: sex.

The explanation on why sex is a problem, can be found in Bustos’ article.

Intellectual Equals

Posted on September 5, 2011 by Jay RG

Recently, I saw a tweet from a fellow skeptic that I follow, @Skepticasm (Adrienne Myers). If you don’t know or follow her, you should. Though we don’t always agree on everything, indicative by this post, she is very interesting, writes wonderfully well, and isn’t afraid to curse in order to emphasize her point (a trinity of qualities I consider fucking essential). Continue reading →

Why waste money on science?

Posted on June 29, 2011 by Zak

Dan Gardner wonders why the government employs scientists only to ignore them when they don’t produce the desired results.

Oh, politicians say their decisions are informed by science but that’s a fairy tale they tell sleepy children and reporters. In reality, politicians cite science when it supports decisions they want to make anyway, for other reasons, whether ideological or political. When science does not support their decisions, they ignore it.

And, since no politician has ever suffered at the polls for abusing science this way, voters seem to be just fine with that.

So why waste money on science?

It’s a reoccuring question. Science needs funding but there’s no rational reason why the government always has to foot the bill. Granted, private science funding has its problems, mostly due the need for results to quickly satisfy profit demands. But if governments are just as short sighted, what are we suppose to do?

If scientists want government funding, they have to accept the ideological beliefs that go with it. Democracy is a bitch. I’d rather have government spending directly accountable to people we elect so that I can vote the bums out when they support policies I don’t like. I want to know what the politicians really think rather than see them hide under cherry-picked results, as it seems to be the case under the current government.

I understand the problems that would arise if all science funding were subject to intense scrutiny. People are stupid and don’t want to fund yet another study on fruit flies not realizing these simple experiments are the first steps towards greater achievements.

So really, it’s up to science supporters to convince the public that spending is necessary. Get people to want more fruit fly experiments. Better science communication is already cited as the way to combat creationism in schools so it’s an issue I know is being considered by those who care. But is it possible to teach the general public the basic principles behind how science works? I don’t know.

Wanted: Credulous professor of Physics

Posted on April 7, 2011 by Ian

Trinity Western University (an evangelical Christian university in Langley, BC ) is hiring a physics professor:

Part-time Faculty Position(s) in the Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences

Trinity Western University’s Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences has part-time opening(s) for teaching undergraduate courses in the areas of mathematics, physics, and possibly computing science for the 2011/12 academic year. As these openings are for sabbatical replacements, staffing could be required for up to three courses in each fall and spring semester.

Introductory/Advanced courses can be assigned depending on background and interest. Some preference may be given to a candidate who could teach higher level courses. A graduate degree in a relevant field is required.

Interested candidates are requested to complete the on-line application at http://www.twu.ca/divisions/hr/join/faculty-positions.html. Applications will be accepted until May 30, 2011 or until a suitable candidate is found, subject to budget approval.

Continue reading →

Templeton report released

Posted on March 4, 2011 by Zak

A 24 page report(pdf) on the Templeton Foundation has been released. The author conducted a good overview on how the organization operates and analyzes how the prizes are awarded. The Templeton Foundation has faced criticisms over the last few years for its goal in reconciling science and religion, which annoys and angers many scientists who don’t think the two are compatible.

The problem is that atheists and scientists have received funding for their work. The report set out to investigate if the foundation was indeed willing to look all ideas or if the contributions of real scientists is just a smokescreen for their hidden agenda.

The report found that even though many atheists and real scientists are awarded prizes and grants, the majority go to anti-science or pro-religious topics. The report concludes that the scientific community ought to boycott the foundation and not accept any grants or prizes.

While I agree with the reasons, I don’t agree with the conclusion. I don’t think a real scientist should give up funding just because the source is sketchy. For some, it’s hard finding funds using conventional sources and since there is no evidence that the Templeton Foundation interferes with the research or publications, I don’t see any reason not to take their money if it’s being used for a good cause. Scientists are busy enough doing science so I don’t want them bogged down in pesky politics and ethics.

It reminds me of the time I worked in an old church. It was being converted into a library (I’m a land developer in real life). My colleagues joked that a militant atheist like me must be having a tough time working for a church. But I didn’t mind. I felt good that the building was finally being used for something useful and I wished I could do it more often. (Imagine how better the world could be if all churches were converted to libraries)

I think the scientists accepting Templeton funding feel the same way. While they understand that they’re likely being used to prop-up the foundation, they don’t mind because they have the resources to continue the research they know and love and, ultimately, that’s what’s really important.

h/t Jerry Coyne

Darwin Day 2011

Posted on February 2, 2011 by rebekah

It’s the most wonderful time of the year — to be a naturalist, that is. Well, strike that “most wonderful time” comment if you’re in Saskatchewan, where we just had -45 windchills! (brrr)

February 12th is Charles Darwin’s birthday, and marks the celebration of “Darwin Day,” a global celebration of science and reason.

What’s going on in Canada for Darwin Day? Leave your group’s activities in the comments.

The big news for Saskatchewan is that Education Minister Donna Harpauer has proclaimed February 12, 2011 as Darwin Day in the province.

In Saskatoon, we’ve got a big Darwin Day event on February 12th that is being sponsored by CFI Saskatchewan, the Saskatoon Skeptics, and the Saskatoon Secular Family Network.

The activities for the day include watching part of the PBS documentary What Darwin Never Knew, guest speakers, family activities (for all ages), and of course, birthday cake!

Since I’m the facilitator for the Saskatoon Secular Family Network, I’ve been rounding up volunteers to put on science demonstrations and experiments for the kids. So far I’ve got volunteers in the areas of biology, chemistry, physics, and epidemiology. One activity I’d like us to run is a station where people can see what they look like “devolved” into an earlier stage.

2011 marks the 202nd birthday of Darwin, and I’m already looking forward to a great day celebrating science and reason.

Education Minister Donna Harpauer has proclaimed February 12, 2011 as Darwin Day in Saskatchewan

Stem cells give hope

Posted on January 12, 2011 by Ian

The importance of stem cell research is evidenced by a Langley (on the outskirts of Vancouver) couple who are hoping stem-cell treatments will help in treating their daughter’s cerebral palsy.

I have to give two disclaimers before I comment on this article. First, unlike another writer here, I am not a health economist, and so I approach this as an amateur. Second, my brother was also born three months premature and also has cerebral palsy and my mother is the executive director of the Cerebral Palsy Association in Alberta.

Cerebral palsy is a physical disability caused by damage to the brain during pregnancy and birth which limits motor skills. The condition ranges from a slight impediment to speech, dexterity and walking ability, to complete physical disability where one is unable to perform even simple tasks such as chewing. Cognitive functions are in no way limited.

Since the condition is caused by damage to the brain, the hope is that stem cells will allow the damaged portions to be repaired and motor skills restored.

However, these therapies are still under experimental testing, so I have to side with the BC Children’s Hospital’s reluctance to opt for the treatment at this point.

With experimental treatments comes hope, however, there are also always risks (both known and unforeseen ones), which is why we rely on strict testing before administering a treatment to the greater population.

I hope for the best for young Savanna, and with luck these treatments will prove successful and after further testing will be available to even more families – especially those without the means to travel great distances and pay for expensive treatments – but until then we need to continue to support funding the fundamental research and to make available as many stem cells as possible.

And while our current regulatory structure seems favourable toward such research, funding is key. As election speculation ramps up, keep in mind our current governments past attempts to stifle academic research in this country.

MPs are not scientists

Posted on December 3, 2010 by Ian

This is why we need evidenced-based politics.

Here’s what the House of Commons health committee recommends that Health Canada start monitoring regarding Wi-Fi:

Health Canada should ensure a process exists to receive and respond to reports of adverse reactions to electromagnetic-radiation-emitting devices such as cell phones and Wi-Fi systems, similar to how adverse reactions are tracked for medications.

Federal government should consider funding long-term studies on the potential health impacts of such exposure.

Health Canada should request that an independent institution assess Canadian and international scientific literature on the potential health impacts of short- and long-term exposure to the radiation and report on its findings.

Health Canada and Industry Canada should raise awareness and promote safe use of wireless technologies.

The two departments could offer to provide information, including awareness sessions, on exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation.

At first glance, all the points seem worthwhile and good skeptical positions that we should be taking… except that if we do all this we waste a lot of money that could go to something useful in health care, like say… saving lives!

Long-term studies have been done, independent international institutions have considered the issue, collecting calls from quacks is a waste of time, and there is no real unsafe way to use most modern electronics (unless you void warranties and make some hacks).

The only half-decent suggestion in that list is that Health Canada ought to “provide information,” which would mean actually combatting the pseudoscientific quackery that’s out there.

Now, I’m going to go to bed and sleep on my wireless router with my cellphone making a call to my cordless home phone tapes to opposite sides of my brain.

Skepticism 101 with Michael Shermer

Posted on November 4, 2010 by Guest

By Andrew Komar

Michael Shermer, the founder and editor of Skeptic magazine and demi-god of the skeptic community, was in Montreal a few weeks back for a pseudoscientific symposium hosted at McGill. You can watch the whole lecture series for free online, also including David Gorski from Respectful Insolence, Ben Goldacre, and the Amazing Randi. I had the privilege of attending this lecture in person, and Mr Shermer even signed my book! The lecture itself was a classic skeptic lecture, and a little review of the basics of skepticism are never out of order.

The primary thesis was the fact that our brains are essentially pattern seeking organs, which has been a very successful adaptation in evolutionary terms. Shermer termed this tendency”patternicity“, which is our ability to find meaningful patterns in noise, both meaningful and meaningless. Patternicity leaves us open to two main types of errors in finding these patterns. Type 1 errors, or false positives, are when we think we see something that isn’t in fact there. From an evolutionary standpoint, this type of error is low cost, because you will be more cautious if you think a tiger lurks in the bushes, even when there is no tiger. The second, type 2 errors, are much more costly in these terms. This is the assumption that there isn’t a tiger when there is, which results in lunch for the tiger.

Our modern lives are far removed from these life-or-death errors, but we still have the same basic caveman hardware. This cranial ‘misfiring’ is what causes optical illusions, because our brain’s shorthand draws conclusions about what we are seeing, even if it is impossible. Patternicity gives rise to pareidolia, for example, seeing faces in meaningless noise.

More troubling, this patternicity can be primed with other information. If we are told to look for something, our brains can ‘edit out’ conflicting information, such as in the classic gorilla basketball experiment. Other times, we are virtually powerless to see other interpretations of the data.

Pretty dolphins, right? Or did you see something else? (Pervert)

This pattern seeking tendency seeps into our entire lives without us ever noticing it, and it often influences our decisions. More troubling, the more uncertain or random the data, the more likely we are to see patterns in the noise. This fact explains superstitious pigeons as well as our own, often bizzare superstitions. I have little doubt that the roots of many religions today have some part in this same basic brain error. Michael Shermer concluded, the first step in overcoming the screw-ups is knowing they are there in the first place.

The great Richard Feynman once said: ”Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” With the lessons from Michael Shermer’s lecture, we are all better equipped to stop fooling ourselves.

Tag Archives: science