May 29, 2010
Barbarians in the Desert
I don't agree with any of the commentators, but I thought it was an interesting discussion.
May 28, 2010
Could you patent the sun?
One of the biggest enemies facing critical thinking and scepticism is that of personal bias. Bias is extremely easy to spot in other people, but notoriously difficult to spot in yourself. No one likes to think that they may be biased but everyone is, in one way or another. Bias often appears in science denialism where someone may be religiously biased towards a Biblical interpretation of the fossil evidence (for example) rather than towards the scientific explanation. The best we can do about our biases is recognise them and be extra vigilant when we come across evidence that conforms to our biased pre-judgements. Because bias has such an affect on our interpretation of evidence, scientists especially should try to limit the influence of such outside factors on their impartial research. Yet we see precisely the opposite occurring. As research and industry snuggle into a cosy relationship, scientists have become enamoured with their commercial partners.
The commercialisation of research has exploded in the fields of biomedical science and biotechnology, with industry poised to make millions, scientists are all too happy to take a cut of the action. However, money is a powerful motivator and researchers now have an added incentive to find certain result. The result which favours whatever corporation provides the funding. If scientists are being influenced by their source of funding, then it should be apparent in their results. Industry funded projects should find positive results more often than non-profit funding. Indeed, taking the example of pharmaceutical research, that is what we find.
Many scientific journals require the submitting authors to declare any conflicts of interest, for example being funded by the same company who owns the patent on the drug in question. Several statistical analyses have been done on the outcomes of these studies and the results should not be surprising to anyone who understands the effects of bias. In 2001 an analysis of 314 drug trials found that non-profit funded research was 3.5 times more likely to find a negative result than industry sponsored trials1. A 2002 study of 159 articles in the British Medical Journal, which requires that funding be declared, found that the authors' conclusions were significantly more positive in trials funded by for profit organisations compared with trials without competing interests (mean difference 0.48, P=0.014)2. A 2004 study showed that in 158 drug trials published in five leading medical journals results favoured industry funded studies by an odds ratio of 1.93. Finally, in 2003 a review selected 37 of the most rigorous studies and pooled their data. They found a statistically significant odds ratio of 3.6 favouring industry funded research4. This review also found that industry funding was associated with restriction on publication and data sharing if the results were negative.
One point to make about these analyses is that they are correlative only, causation could not be determined. Although the quality of the studies was controlled for (often poorer quality in industry funded trials) one possible explanation is that industry interests somehow pick pharmaceuticals that are more likely to succeed in trials. I can’t imagine how they would know beforehand which drugs have better prospects, but it is a possibility. More likely, however, is that the scientists performing these studies are influenced by the commercial factors at play in their research. These results are very reminiscent of ‘tobacco science’ where, for example, 94% of industry funded inquiry found no harm from second-hand smoke compared to just 13% of non-profit funded research. If correct, this interpretation is quite troubling. First, it means that consumers are being bombarded by new pharmaceuticals which are of questionable value over the old versions and in some cases, downright dangerous. Second, the reputation of science for impartiality and following evidence is being ruined by commercial interest by both outside companies and the scientists themselves. When the commercial bias of scientists is revealed, say through a drug recall or hidden financial contributions, the public starts becoming suspicious of these intellectual elites. In fact, the commercialisation of research could be contributing to the distrust of science, the growing interest in alternative medicine, and the rejection of genetic engineering.
Believe it or not there was a time when industry and academia where more or less separate. Scientists with relevant expertise might be given an honorarium to help overcome a particular problem or speak on a certain topic, but that was about it. Funding was largely provided by governments and scientists were free to explore myriad lines of inquiry, whether it might lead to a practical application or not. Even when there research could be commercialised, the scientists themselves would rarely have much to do with it. Their results were given away into the public domain. In 1954, Jonas Salk developed his vaccine against polio, when asked whether he would patent it he found the idea ridiculous replying, “Could you patent the sun?” Unfortunately, this attitude is found rarely in the field of biotechnology. Many exotic genes and interesting methods are often patented by the researchers who first discover them either preventing further inquiry or driving the cost of research even higher. This also makes the funding of science less attractive to the public sector that now sees less return for its investment.
Unfortunately, I don’t have any solutions for the problem. I just think the commercialisation of research makes an important contribution to the growth of science denialism and was worth highlighting. Patent law clearly needs a complete overall. I dislike attempts to own parts of nature - “to patent the sun” - but companies do need protection for their intellectual property. Similarly, industry funding research is having a negative impact on the impartiality of science, but there is no denying the benefits that have emerged from such partnerships. Perhaps blinding individual scientists to the source of their funding and preventing patents on natural products could go some way to removing this troubling commercial bias from academic scientists.
1. Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J. The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract. 2001 Dec;18(6):565-8.
2. Lise L Kjaergard & Bodil Als-Nielsen. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002;325:249 ( 3 August )
3. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schünemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ. 2004 Feb 17;170(4):477-80.
4. Justin E. Bekelman, AB; Yan Li, MPhil; Cary P. Gross, MD Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review JAMA. 2003;289:454-465
The commercialisation of research has exploded in the fields of biomedical science and biotechnology, with industry poised to make millions, scientists are all too happy to take a cut of the action. However, money is a powerful motivator and researchers now have an added incentive to find certain result. The result which favours whatever corporation provides the funding. If scientists are being influenced by their source of funding, then it should be apparent in their results. Industry funded projects should find positive results more often than non-profit funding. Indeed, taking the example of pharmaceutical research, that is what we find.
Many scientific journals require the submitting authors to declare any conflicts of interest, for example being funded by the same company who owns the patent on the drug in question. Several statistical analyses have been done on the outcomes of these studies and the results should not be surprising to anyone who understands the effects of bias. In 2001 an analysis of 314 drug trials found that non-profit funded research was 3.5 times more likely to find a negative result than industry sponsored trials1. A 2002 study of 159 articles in the British Medical Journal, which requires that funding be declared, found that the authors' conclusions were significantly more positive in trials funded by for profit organisations compared with trials without competing interests (mean difference 0.48, P=0.014)2. A 2004 study showed that in 158 drug trials published in five leading medical journals results favoured industry funded studies by an odds ratio of 1.93. Finally, in 2003 a review selected 37 of the most rigorous studies and pooled their data. They found a statistically significant odds ratio of 3.6 favouring industry funded research4. This review also found that industry funding was associated with restriction on publication and data sharing if the results were negative.
One point to make about these analyses is that they are correlative only, causation could not be determined. Although the quality of the studies was controlled for (often poorer quality in industry funded trials) one possible explanation is that industry interests somehow pick pharmaceuticals that are more likely to succeed in trials. I can’t imagine how they would know beforehand which drugs have better prospects, but it is a possibility. More likely, however, is that the scientists performing these studies are influenced by the commercial factors at play in their research. These results are very reminiscent of ‘tobacco science’ where, for example, 94% of industry funded inquiry found no harm from second-hand smoke compared to just 13% of non-profit funded research. If correct, this interpretation is quite troubling. First, it means that consumers are being bombarded by new pharmaceuticals which are of questionable value over the old versions and in some cases, downright dangerous. Second, the reputation of science for impartiality and following evidence is being ruined by commercial interest by both outside companies and the scientists themselves. When the commercial bias of scientists is revealed, say through a drug recall or hidden financial contributions, the public starts becoming suspicious of these intellectual elites. In fact, the commercialisation of research could be contributing to the distrust of science, the growing interest in alternative medicine, and the rejection of genetic engineering.
Believe it or not there was a time when industry and academia where more or less separate. Scientists with relevant expertise might be given an honorarium to help overcome a particular problem or speak on a certain topic, but that was about it. Funding was largely provided by governments and scientists were free to explore myriad lines of inquiry, whether it might lead to a practical application or not. Even when there research could be commercialised, the scientists themselves would rarely have much to do with it. Their results were given away into the public domain. In 1954, Jonas Salk developed his vaccine against polio, when asked whether he would patent it he found the idea ridiculous replying, “Could you patent the sun?” Unfortunately, this attitude is found rarely in the field of biotechnology. Many exotic genes and interesting methods are often patented by the researchers who first discover them either preventing further inquiry or driving the cost of research even higher. This also makes the funding of science less attractive to the public sector that now sees less return for its investment.
Unfortunately, I don’t have any solutions for the problem. I just think the commercialisation of research makes an important contribution to the growth of science denialism and was worth highlighting. Patent law clearly needs a complete overall. I dislike attempts to own parts of nature - “to patent the sun” - but companies do need protection for their intellectual property. Similarly, industry funding research is having a negative impact on the impartiality of science, but there is no denying the benefits that have emerged from such partnerships. Perhaps blinding individual scientists to the source of their funding and preventing patents on natural products could go some way to removing this troubling commercial bias from academic scientists.
1. Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J. The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract. 2001 Dec;18(6):565-8.
2. Lise L Kjaergard & Bodil Als-Nielsen. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002;325:249 ( 3 August )
3. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schünemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ. 2004 Feb 17;170(4):477-80.
4. Justin E. Bekelman, AB; Yan Li, MPhil; Cary P. Gross, MD Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review JAMA. 2003;289:454-465
May 27, 2010
Ulster Museum to Promote Creationism?
Nelson McCausland, culture minister for Norhtern Ireland has asked Ulster Museum to put up displays on Creationism. Creationism is the Biblical based view that the Earth was created October 23rd, 4004 BCE. It is anti-science in the extreme and not something a museum ought to be promoting. Guardian covers the story.
May 26, 2010
Buried chest high
A very powerful poem written by an ex-Muslim YouTube user. Some of the images may be disturbing.
May 25, 2010
Dr. Andrew Wakefield in Comic Form
A new 15 page comic covers the MMR vaccine controversy caused by the unscrupulous Dr Wakefield. The comic documents the ethics violations and undeclared conflicts of interest that caused the Lancet to retract Wakefield's paper and the Medical Council to strike him off their register.
I hope that information in comic form will be easy enough for vaccine deniers to digest. On second thought, perhaps not.
I hope that information in comic form will be easy enough for vaccine deniers to digest. On second thought, perhaps not.
May 24, 2010
The failure of prayer
Five heart attacks since they started praying? God certainly has a morbid sense of humour. Faith healing and alternative medicine don't work and just lead to more deaths. This is a tragedy just waiting to happen.
May 23, 2010
Google Pacman
Best Google doodle so far is the playable Pacman logo in celebration of the 30th anniversary of the game. Sweet.
May 22, 2010
Science vs. religion: are they incompatible?
One question that frequently confronts the New Atheists (especially those with a scientific background) is whether a religion and science are incompatible. The stock answer is that many religious leaders accept science as a good way to understand the natural world and conversely, many scientists have a religious faith (Ken Miller and Francis Collins come to mind). In a previous blog post I talked about how sociological research had revealed that about half of American scientists are able to both perform cutting-edge science and maintain a religious identity. An even larger proportion is still interested in matters of spirituality despite daily engaging in rational, empirical inquiry.
These facts show there is, at least, a kind of ‘brute compatibility’ between science and religion; a single person can hold both ideas simultaneously. However, the obvious counter to ‘brute compatibility’ is to point out that in certain cases the findings of science to conflict with specific claims about how the nature of the world. For example, if you claim that the world is 6,000 years old, science says you are wrong. According to empirical data, the world is more like 4.5 billion years old and anyone who says the scientific evidence shows otherwise is simply mistaken. Because science can only conflict with specifically defined religious claims, I call this ‘specific incompatibility’. Although this type of incompatibility is important, and probably accounts for a large proportion of science’s moderating impact on religion, it does not completely contradict all types of religious claims. Again, this answer is too superficial; the original question is asking something more fundamental - are religion and science incompatible at the deeper, philosophical level?
Here we must start with a rigorous understanding of the exact nature of science, its epistemological limits, and the assumptions it makes. First science assumes that the universe exists and is, broadly speaking, observer independent. This assumption avoids the problem of solipsism, where I could construct an argument based on the idea that the universe is simply a figment of my (hyperactive) imagination. The second assumption brings in causality, scientists must assume that causes and effects are empirical (observable and measurable) and, more importantly, natural. That these causes must be empirical is fairly self-explanatory. If we cannot observe and measure we cannot draw any inferences, offer any explanations, or say anything at all about them! Basically, we would not be able to do science. Less clear might be why science can only approach natural causes rather than supernatural ones.
Let’s use an example to help highlight the problem of supernatural causes. A nice set of evidence for evolution is that of the fossil record. Without going into too much detail, the arrangement and transitions of different fossil types is empirical evidence for evolution occurring in the real world (the universe out there). However, along comes a supernaturalist, and he to us “yes, I agree with your observations and measurements of the fossil evidence, however God (or other supernatural cause) made it so the fossil record appeared to support evolution but in reality the theory is wrong.” This is a serious and unsolvable problem for science and it can be applied to any other explanation or conclusion derived from methods based on the two assumptions above. If supernatural causes are allowed the best of real, verifiable, and empirical science will frequently give the wrong answer. If God (et al) always makes the observed and measured evidence look like it is supporting the wrong conclusion no appeal to empiricism can save a scientific theory – by definition. This is why science must reject supernatural causation and become methodologically naturalist at the outset. Without this assumption we would not be able to do science.
Methodological naturalism, therefore, means that science cannot ever make a judgement on supernatural claims. Science assumes that supernatural causes don’t exist and gets on with its job of figuring out the observable universe. As religion, for the large part, is based on such supernatural claims (God caused the universe, Karma causes ill luck, Boobs cause earthquakes) science has very little to do with the majority of religious assertions. I call this ‘philosophical compatibility’, as an understanding of the philosophy of science shows that science and religion are not in conflict. I accept that in specific cases religious claims may contradict with the findings of science and in those cases religion is wrong, but we can always take the step back to the philosophical level and show that such ‘contradictions’ may not be problematic if we allow for supernatural causes.
There’s one last level I want to discuss and that is ‘metaphysical incompatibility’. Working from science and its assumption of methodological naturalism one might take the eminently reasonable position of philosophical naturalism – supernatural forces positively do not exist in the real world. Note that this is not a scientific position but a metaphysical one, albeit one informed by scientific understanding. Science is insufficient to get us to philosophical naturalism, the move also requires reason and logical arguments (examples would include the argument from suffering of which I am fond). Philosophical naturalism is in clear contradiction with a metaphysic infused with religious supernaturalism. There is also a secondary incompatibility at this level but Feynman said it best so I’m going to turn the last word over to him:
And that is the heart of the science/religion incompatibility in a nutshell.
These facts show there is, at least, a kind of ‘brute compatibility’ between science and religion; a single person can hold both ideas simultaneously. However, the obvious counter to ‘brute compatibility’ is to point out that in certain cases the findings of science to conflict with specific claims about how the nature of the world. For example, if you claim that the world is 6,000 years old, science says you are wrong. According to empirical data, the world is more like 4.5 billion years old and anyone who says the scientific evidence shows otherwise is simply mistaken. Because science can only conflict with specifically defined religious claims, I call this ‘specific incompatibility’. Although this type of incompatibility is important, and probably accounts for a large proportion of science’s moderating impact on religion, it does not completely contradict all types of religious claims. Again, this answer is too superficial; the original question is asking something more fundamental - are religion and science incompatible at the deeper, philosophical level?
Here we must start with a rigorous understanding of the exact nature of science, its epistemological limits, and the assumptions it makes. First science assumes that the universe exists and is, broadly speaking, observer independent. This assumption avoids the problem of solipsism, where I could construct an argument based on the idea that the universe is simply a figment of my (hyperactive) imagination. The second assumption brings in causality, scientists must assume that causes and effects are empirical (observable and measurable) and, more importantly, natural. That these causes must be empirical is fairly self-explanatory. If we cannot observe and measure we cannot draw any inferences, offer any explanations, or say anything at all about them! Basically, we would not be able to do science. Less clear might be why science can only approach natural causes rather than supernatural ones.
Let’s use an example to help highlight the problem of supernatural causes. A nice set of evidence for evolution is that of the fossil record. Without going into too much detail, the arrangement and transitions of different fossil types is empirical evidence for evolution occurring in the real world (the universe out there). However, along comes a supernaturalist, and he to us “yes, I agree with your observations and measurements of the fossil evidence, however God (or other supernatural cause) made it so the fossil record appeared to support evolution but in reality the theory is wrong.” This is a serious and unsolvable problem for science and it can be applied to any other explanation or conclusion derived from methods based on the two assumptions above. If supernatural causes are allowed the best of real, verifiable, and empirical science will frequently give the wrong answer. If God (et al) always makes the observed and measured evidence look like it is supporting the wrong conclusion no appeal to empiricism can save a scientific theory – by definition. This is why science must reject supernatural causation and become methodologically naturalist at the outset. Without this assumption we would not be able to do science.
Methodological naturalism, therefore, means that science cannot ever make a judgement on supernatural claims. Science assumes that supernatural causes don’t exist and gets on with its job of figuring out the observable universe. As religion, for the large part, is based on such supernatural claims (God caused the universe, Karma causes ill luck, Boobs cause earthquakes) science has very little to do with the majority of religious assertions. I call this ‘philosophical compatibility’, as an understanding of the philosophy of science shows that science and religion are not in conflict. I accept that in specific cases religious claims may contradict with the findings of science and in those cases religion is wrong, but we can always take the step back to the philosophical level and show that such ‘contradictions’ may not be problematic if we allow for supernatural causes.
There’s one last level I want to discuss and that is ‘metaphysical incompatibility’. Working from science and its assumption of methodological naturalism one might take the eminently reasonable position of philosophical naturalism – supernatural forces positively do not exist in the real world. Note that this is not a scientific position but a metaphysical one, albeit one informed by scientific understanding. Science is insufficient to get us to philosophical naturalism, the move also requires reason and logical arguments (examples would include the argument from suffering of which I am fond). Philosophical naturalism is in clear contradiction with a metaphysic infused with religious supernaturalism. There is also a secondary incompatibility at this level but Feynman said it best so I’m going to turn the last word over to him:
“As a matter of fact, the conflict is doubly difficult in this metaphysical region. Firstly, the facts may be in conflict, but even if the facts were not in conflict, the attitude is different. The spirit of uncertainty in science is an attitude toward the metaphysical questions that is quite different from the certainty and faith that is demanded in religion. There is definitely a conflict, I believe – both in fact and in spirit – over the metaphysical aspects of religion.”
And that is the heart of the science/religion incompatibility in a nutshell.
May 21, 2010
May 20, 2010
May 19, 2010
Mistakes Were Made
"But not by me" reads the subtitle to this staple non-pology. Mistakes Were Made by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson is a fascinating look into the psychology of being wrong. Examples range from psychiatrists, scientists, politicians, TV hosts, all the way to regular people on the street. The focus of this book is not that people are wrong, but that they refuse to admit they are wrong even to themselves and thus confound the error. As I read this book there was a disconcerting transition from recognising the mistakes other people make to recognising those same mistakes in myself. It turns out that everybody errs and nobody admits to it.
The major driver behind our inability to admit mistakes is the need to reduce cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling of simultaneously holding two contradictory beliefs. In this case the belief that 'I am a good person' conflicts with the belief 'I made a mistake' and rationalisation kicks in to try and eliminate one of these two beliefs. The easiest one to avoid is 'I made a mistake' and that is often the one to go. The authors talk about the numerous ways in which we all try and reduce dissonance. We blame other people, we come up with justifications for our actions, and we ignore evidence that shows we are wrong. Interestingly, we also rewrite our very memories of events to make them seem more favourable to our point of view. This chapter really made me question how accurate anyone (including myself) could be when trying to recall past events.
The most illuminating example(s) in Mistakes Were Made were those that dealt with recovered memories. Recovering memories used to be a legitimate psychiatric practice and helped thousands of people 'remember' child abuse, sexual assaults, satanic rituals, and even alien abductions. You'd think by the time aliens came up, the accuracy of the technique might be called into question but the authors do a great job of explaining how accepting small steps can lead to ending at ludicrous (even criminal) outcomes that would not have been accepted in the beginning. The allegations of parental sexual abuse had devastating impacts of real families and some of those involved still can't admit they were wrong.
Mistakes Were Made contains numerous lessons that anyone could apply to their own lives. I learned a lot from this book and it changed the way I think about how other think and act. The central message from this book is that we all would be better off admitting to each other (and ourselves) when we are wrong.
Overall: 9/10 fantastic read.
The major driver behind our inability to admit mistakes is the need to reduce cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling of simultaneously holding two contradictory beliefs. In this case the belief that 'I am a good person' conflicts with the belief 'I made a mistake' and rationalisation kicks in to try and eliminate one of these two beliefs. The easiest one to avoid is 'I made a mistake' and that is often the one to go. The authors talk about the numerous ways in which we all try and reduce dissonance. We blame other people, we come up with justifications for our actions, and we ignore evidence that shows we are wrong. Interestingly, we also rewrite our very memories of events to make them seem more favourable to our point of view. This chapter really made me question how accurate anyone (including myself) could be when trying to recall past events.
The most illuminating example(s) in Mistakes Were Made were those that dealt with recovered memories. Recovering memories used to be a legitimate psychiatric practice and helped thousands of people 'remember' child abuse, sexual assaults, satanic rituals, and even alien abductions. You'd think by the time aliens came up, the accuracy of the technique might be called into question but the authors do a great job of explaining how accepting small steps can lead to ending at ludicrous (even criminal) outcomes that would not have been accepted in the beginning. The allegations of parental sexual abuse had devastating impacts of real families and some of those involved still can't admit they were wrong.
Mistakes Were Made contains numerous lessons that anyone could apply to their own lives. I learned a lot from this book and it changed the way I think about how other think and act. The central message from this book is that we all would be better off admitting to each other (and ourselves) when we are wrong.
Overall: 9/10 fantastic read.
May 18, 2010
Science denialism
One of the most serious problems facing science communication is that of well funded and well organised movements of science denialism. The adherents of these movements completely reject certain aspects of mainstream science and no amount of persuasive evidence or reasoned argument will help them change there mind. Some examples of science denialism include creationism (aka intelligent design), anti-vaccination (aka Jenny McCarthyism), AIDS denial, and climate denial.
Proponents of science denial often defend their views with great zeal and effort. Yet apart from the one or two areas where they refuse to trust mainstream science, they are often logical and rational people. It is not hard to explain why someone who begins down the path of science denialism often finds it difficult to claw their way back to reality. Once a denialist has made a commitment to a particular anti-science idea, self-justification will allow them to overlook bias and ignore disconfirming evidence. These cognitive processes can quickly lead to an entrenched opinion which is fundamentally anti-scientific and almost impossible to dislodge. The problematic outcome is compounded by the availability of flagrantly false material over the internet and a sense of entitlement, that ones opinions should be valued at the same rate as an expert’s. However, this does not explain why a denialist would take that first false step, even when they appeared to have every opportunity to do otherwise.
I think there are two factors at play, pre-judgements and logical mis-steps. Pre-judgements occur due to our pre-existing biases and beliefs. They can take the form of ideologies, religions, or simply prior attitudes and assumptions. These biases cloud our judgement making us more likely to take our first step in the wrong direction, away from science and towards denialism. Creationism/Intelligent Design is a prime example of pre-judgement over-ruling the scientific approach. When a Christian approaches the evidence for evolution with “Biblical glasses” they’ve already closed their minds to disconfirming facts. The choice to go against the evidence was, in effect, already made when they chose to approach the question from their religious viewpoint. It is impossible to eliminate bias or to completely step outside your ideology/religion but the point is to be aware of what they are and be prepared to accept findings that contradict your previous ideas. This is what it means to have an open mind.
The second factor that sends someone onto the denial path is a logical mis-step. These occur because our brains are wired to take short-cuts in thinking, these short-cuts can be convenient but they frequently give us the wrong answer. A prominent example of this type of thinking is to confuse correlation with causation. This error frequently occurs in the vaccine denialist movement where the childhood vaccination schedule correlates with the onset of autism. Despite the total lack of evidence that vaccinations actually cause autism, for many parents the correlation is sufficient to take the first step towards denialism. Another frequent mis-step is to consider the consequences of a scientific point of view rather than considering the evidence. If evolution is true then we are related to monkeys, if HIV causes AIDS then I’m seriously ill, if global warming is true then the Earth is FUBAR. Because each of the consequences is detrimental (to our health or civilisation or concept of self) we will be sorely tempted to deny the science behind these facts. If we choose to disbelieve science based solely on the unpleasant consequences, then we have made a logical mis-step. The good news is that just being aware of logical errors helps to guard against making them. Learning critical thinking skills will prevent people from becoming denialists.
Once self-justification sets in, getting someone to give up their form of science denial is almost impossible. It will usually require a great deal of time, effort, and patience – with no guarantee of success. By contrast, preventing people from entering the denailism path is much easier and much more likely to succeed. As sceptics, freethinkers, and scientists this is where our energy should be going. Countering nonsense is unlikely to change any minds, but it is likely to prevent further minds from rejecting reality.
Proponents of science denial often defend their views with great zeal and effort. Yet apart from the one or two areas where they refuse to trust mainstream science, they are often logical and rational people. It is not hard to explain why someone who begins down the path of science denialism often finds it difficult to claw their way back to reality. Once a denialist has made a commitment to a particular anti-science idea, self-justification will allow them to overlook bias and ignore disconfirming evidence. These cognitive processes can quickly lead to an entrenched opinion which is fundamentally anti-scientific and almost impossible to dislodge. The problematic outcome is compounded by the availability of flagrantly false material over the internet and a sense of entitlement, that ones opinions should be valued at the same rate as an expert’s. However, this does not explain why a denialist would take that first false step, even when they appeared to have every opportunity to do otherwise.
I think there are two factors at play, pre-judgements and logical mis-steps. Pre-judgements occur due to our pre-existing biases and beliefs. They can take the form of ideologies, religions, or simply prior attitudes and assumptions. These biases cloud our judgement making us more likely to take our first step in the wrong direction, away from science and towards denialism. Creationism/Intelligent Design is a prime example of pre-judgement over-ruling the scientific approach. When a Christian approaches the evidence for evolution with “Biblical glasses” they’ve already closed their minds to disconfirming facts. The choice to go against the evidence was, in effect, already made when they chose to approach the question from their religious viewpoint. It is impossible to eliminate bias or to completely step outside your ideology/religion but the point is to be aware of what they are and be prepared to accept findings that contradict your previous ideas. This is what it means to have an open mind.
The second factor that sends someone onto the denial path is a logical mis-step. These occur because our brains are wired to take short-cuts in thinking, these short-cuts can be convenient but they frequently give us the wrong answer. A prominent example of this type of thinking is to confuse correlation with causation. This error frequently occurs in the vaccine denialist movement where the childhood vaccination schedule correlates with the onset of autism. Despite the total lack of evidence that vaccinations actually cause autism, for many parents the correlation is sufficient to take the first step towards denialism. Another frequent mis-step is to consider the consequences of a scientific point of view rather than considering the evidence. If evolution is true then we are related to monkeys, if HIV causes AIDS then I’m seriously ill, if global warming is true then the Earth is FUBAR. Because each of the consequences is detrimental (to our health or civilisation or concept of self) we will be sorely tempted to deny the science behind these facts. If we choose to disbelieve science based solely on the unpleasant consequences, then we have made a logical mis-step. The good news is that just being aware of logical errors helps to guard against making them. Learning critical thinking skills will prevent people from becoming denialists.
Once self-justification sets in, getting someone to give up their form of science denial is almost impossible. It will usually require a great deal of time, effort, and patience – with no guarantee of success. By contrast, preventing people from entering the denailism path is much easier and much more likely to succeed. As sceptics, freethinkers, and scientists this is where our energy should be going. Countering nonsense is unlikely to change any minds, but it is likely to prevent further minds from rejecting reality.
May 17, 2010
Humans evolve too
Altitude sickness is caused as a decrease in air pressure affects the body's ability to take up oxygen (although the exact causes are not completely understood). The effects are more severe in those unacclimatised to high-altitude conditions. People who have lived all their lives in such conditions are, understandable, less affected. Mountaineers can also spend time at a high-altitude base camp to acclimatise before making the final assent.
Those who live in the mountainous regions of Earth, generation after generation, have the possibility of adapting to the conditions on a more permanent, genetic bases. Altitude sickness can be debilitating and is occasionally fatal so mutations that allow more effective delivery of oxygen will be favoured. Researchers have now found evidence of such mutations in the high-altitude populations of Tibet.
By taking genetic samples of about 30 villagers and subjecting them to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis looking for single base changes in crucial genes. By comparing these SNPs to those from a nearby, low-altitude village 10 candidate genes were identified - including two related to haemoglobin. More work needs to be done to understand how (or if) these gene mutations contribute to survival at high-altitudes but it is certainly suggestive evidence that humans evolve too.
Genetic Evidence for High-Altitude Adaptation in Tibet Tatum. S. Simonson, Yingzhong Yang, Chad D. Huff, Haixia Yun, Ga Qin, David J. Witherspoon, et al. Science, 13 May 2010 DOI: 10.1126/science.1189406
Those who live in the mountainous regions of Earth, generation after generation, have the possibility of adapting to the conditions on a more permanent, genetic bases. Altitude sickness can be debilitating and is occasionally fatal so mutations that allow more effective delivery of oxygen will be favoured. Researchers have now found evidence of such mutations in the high-altitude populations of Tibet.
By taking genetic samples of about 30 villagers and subjecting them to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis looking for single base changes in crucial genes. By comparing these SNPs to those from a nearby, low-altitude village 10 candidate genes were identified - including two related to haemoglobin. More work needs to be done to understand how (or if) these gene mutations contribute to survival at high-altitudes but it is certainly suggestive evidence that humans evolve too.
Genetic Evidence for High-Altitude Adaptation in Tibet Tatum. S. Simonson, Yingzhong Yang, Chad D. Huff, Haixia Yun, Ga Qin, David J. Witherspoon, et al. Science, 13 May 2010 DOI: 10.1126/science.1189406
May 16, 2010
Half the Earth too hot by 2300
If anthropogenic global warming continues, over the next 300 years half of the Earth's surface may become too hot for human habitation, say scientists from Australia's University of New South Wales and Purdue University in the USA. Along with rising sea levels, biodiversity loss, and ocean acidification a major problem is the warming itself. If we are unable to stop the warming or adapt to the new conditions, global warming could be a real doomsday for human civilisation.
May 15, 2010
What's my sect? None of your business!
Quick one today on the growing calls for Secularism in Lebanon. Lebanon has an interesting constitution which stipulates that 50 of it's parliament have to be Christians and the other half have to be Muslims. Furthermore, the president is to be a Maronite, the prime minister a Sunni, and the speaker a Shi'a. The youth of Lebanon are unhappy with so much empasis on the various sects and want to move to proportion voting and a secular state. What's their sect? It's none of your business!
May 14, 2010
Lizard competition drives evolution
In a large manipulation of the environment two researchers have used entire islands in the Bahamas to test evolution. The biologists focused on the traits of running and body size of native lizard populations to test whether intra- or inter-specific competition was the greater driver of evolution.
On different islands these researchers alternatively used bird-proof netting to limit predation, introduced snakes to increase predation, or added more lizards to increase competition. They found that predation was essentially random with neither body size or overall speed making much difference to who would be eaten for lunch. On the other hand, when intra-specific competition increased having a larger body size and faster movement allowed certain lizards to access scare resources more effectively. It was this force, the researchers found, that drove the lizards evolution and not the predation.
While this is fascinating research and provides yet more evidence that evolution does actually occur (and within our lifetime) the biologists are quick to point out that this finding may not be replicating in other predator/prey relationships where predation could be more of an evolutionary factor.
Ryan Calsbeek, Robert M. Cox. Experimentally assessing the relative importance of predation and competition as agents of selection. Nature, 2010; DOI:10.1038/nature09020
On different islands these researchers alternatively used bird-proof netting to limit predation, introduced snakes to increase predation, or added more lizards to increase competition. They found that predation was essentially random with neither body size or overall speed making much difference to who would be eaten for lunch. On the other hand, when intra-specific competition increased having a larger body size and faster movement allowed certain lizards to access scare resources more effectively. It was this force, the researchers found, that drove the lizards evolution and not the predation.
While this is fascinating research and provides yet more evidence that evolution does actually occur (and within our lifetime) the biologists are quick to point out that this finding may not be replicating in other predator/prey relationships where predation could be more of an evolutionary factor.
Ryan Calsbeek, Robert M. Cox. Experimentally assessing the relative importance of predation and competition as agents of selection. Nature, 2010; DOI:10.1038/nature09020
May 13, 2010
Mohammed cartoonist attacked
Lars Vilks, the cartoonist who drew Mohammed head on the body of a dog, was attacked while lecturing in Switzerland on free speech. He wasn't seriously harmed but the attacker managed to break his glasses. The security guards quickly gained control of the situation.
Several students can be heard chanting "Allah is great" (in Arabic) in the background. Violence is a totally unacceptable way to respond to satirical treatment of religious figures. Complaints and peaceful protests are the way to promote your dissatisfaction at the situation. The more certain groups of Muslims use violence to attack free speech, the more critical it becomes to continue producing depictions of Mohammed to preserve that freedom. This is going to be a hard lesson to learn about Western values, but they are going to have to learn it.
Draw Mohammed day on the 20th will be a good start.
Several students can be heard chanting "Allah is great" (in Arabic) in the background. Violence is a totally unacceptable way to respond to satirical treatment of religious figures. Complaints and peaceful protests are the way to promote your dissatisfaction at the situation. The more certain groups of Muslims use violence to attack free speech, the more critical it becomes to continue producing depictions of Mohammed to preserve that freedom. This is going to be a hard lesson to learn about Western values, but they are going to have to learn it.
Draw Mohammed day on the 20th will be a good start.
May 12, 2010
Countering the Narrative
A recurring phenomenon in the spate of Islamic terror attacks has been that the perpetrators are often citizens who turn on their own countries. Mjr. Hasan's attack on Ft. Hood in America being a prime example. A recent 60 minutes documentary purports to explain how peaceful Muslims can be turned into fanatical extremists willing to engage in suicide attacks on the very countries they live in.
Recruiters for these fundamentalist Islamic organisations rely on 'the narrative', a collection of stories, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and outright lies that claims the USA and the rest of Western civilisation is trying to eradicate Islam. This set of stories has been propagating wildly since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and appeals not to the poor and needy, but to prosperous and educated citizens who make foreign countries their home. Consider Mohamed Atta, the leader of the WTC attacks and educated at universities in Cairo and Hamburg. Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the London metro attacks, educated at Leeds University and prior to the attack was holding down a steady job. Or the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad. He holds double degrees from American universities, had a good job, a wife, and a nice house in the suburbs. These are the faces of Islamic terrorism in the West.
Even though there are many instances of Western governments defending or supporting Muslims in Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Indonesia (disaster relief), Iraq and Afghanistan (overthrowing tyrannies) belief in the narrative remains strong. This set of beliefs is also being successfully exported to Western countries, with tragic results. Hatred of those who kill Muslims is encouraged yet, despite the fact that deliberate suicide bombings by Al-Qaeda kill more Muslims than drone attacks by American forces, adherants to the narrative still direct their hatred towards the West and their support towards terrorist organisations. The narrative includes the idea that the US government actually encouraged Al-Qaeda to carry out the attack on the WTC as a justification to invade Afghanistan - these fundamentalist Muslims are apparently 9/11 truthers.
Funded by the oil revenues of the Arab states, political Islamism is attempting to spread itself across the globe by going to war with any opposition. Having seized control of many regimes in the Muslim world, Islamists are enlarging the area they control. Conflicts between Muslims and other local populations in Russia, Indonesia, India, North Africa, Europe, and the USA show they have been extremely successful in spreading their ideology and bringing the fight to us. According to Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation, countering the narrative is the most important aspect to preventing the spread of Islamism. I would add that moving away from an oil-based economy and ending the cosy relationship with Saudi leaders would also help by cutting off the economic backing of this dangerous, and deadly, movement.
Recruiters for these fundamentalist Islamic organisations rely on 'the narrative', a collection of stories, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and outright lies that claims the USA and the rest of Western civilisation is trying to eradicate Islam. This set of stories has been propagating wildly since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and appeals not to the poor and needy, but to prosperous and educated citizens who make foreign countries their home. Consider Mohamed Atta, the leader of the WTC attacks and educated at universities in Cairo and Hamburg. Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the London metro attacks, educated at Leeds University and prior to the attack was holding down a steady job. Or the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad. He holds double degrees from American universities, had a good job, a wife, and a nice house in the suburbs. These are the faces of Islamic terrorism in the West.
Even though there are many instances of Western governments defending or supporting Muslims in Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Indonesia (disaster relief), Iraq and Afghanistan (overthrowing tyrannies) belief in the narrative remains strong. This set of beliefs is also being successfully exported to Western countries, with tragic results. Hatred of those who kill Muslims is encouraged yet, despite the fact that deliberate suicide bombings by Al-Qaeda kill more Muslims than drone attacks by American forces, adherants to the narrative still direct their hatred towards the West and their support towards terrorist organisations. The narrative includes the idea that the US government actually encouraged Al-Qaeda to carry out the attack on the WTC as a justification to invade Afghanistan - these fundamentalist Muslims are apparently 9/11 truthers.
Funded by the oil revenues of the Arab states, political Islamism is attempting to spread itself across the globe by going to war with any opposition. Having seized control of many regimes in the Muslim world, Islamists are enlarging the area they control. Conflicts between Muslims and other local populations in Russia, Indonesia, India, North Africa, Europe, and the USA show they have been extremely successful in spreading their ideology and bringing the fight to us. According to Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation, countering the narrative is the most important aspect to preventing the spread of Islamism. I would add that moving away from an oil-based economy and ending the cosy relationship with Saudi leaders would also help by cutting off the economic backing of this dangerous, and deadly, movement.
May 11, 2010
Science vs. Religion
A sociological survey by Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice University has asked a sample of 1,700 scientists from top tier American universities about their view on religion. Perhaps surprisingly, a large proportion (50%) did claim a religious identity. The scientists in this survey were less religious than the general population, 52% said they had no religious affiliation compared with only 14% of the American population. A greater majority (65%) say they are interested in matters of spirituality. Ecklund has recently published a book discussing her research called, Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think.
Around 300 of these scientists (both religious and non-religious) were followed up in more in-depth interviews. Many scientists had the view that religion was not a topic for discussion amongst their colleagues and chose to keep their faith hidden. Others had unorthodox views of religion - not believing in God while still identifying as a catholic, for example. Only 2% identified their beliefs as 'fundamental' or 'evangelical'. The best news was that none of the interviewees though intelligent design (creationism) should be taught in classrooms.
Interestingly, the results of this survey indicate that learning about science does not seem to cause people to lose their religious beliefs. Most of these scientists had already come to their religious point of view before engaging into higher education. The biggest predictor of a scientist's religion (or lack thereof) was still the religion of their parents.
I think this survey has revealed some heartening information about the scientific community (at least in USA). Scientists that are also religious already understand the tensions between science and faith, and how to resolve them. These religious scientists are also more likely to be accepted into faith-based communities and have the best chance of imparting good scientific information. As long as they are not to scared to 'come out' to their colleagues, there is a great opportunity for some useful dialogue in the science vs. religion debate.
Ecklund, Elaine and Christopher Scheitle 2007. ‘Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.’ Social Problems 54: 289–307.
Around 300 of these scientists (both religious and non-religious) were followed up in more in-depth interviews. Many scientists had the view that religion was not a topic for discussion amongst their colleagues and chose to keep their faith hidden. Others had unorthodox views of religion - not believing in God while still identifying as a catholic, for example. Only 2% identified their beliefs as 'fundamental' or 'evangelical'. The best news was that none of the interviewees though intelligent design (creationism) should be taught in classrooms.
Interestingly, the results of this survey indicate that learning about science does not seem to cause people to lose their religious beliefs. Most of these scientists had already come to their religious point of view before engaging into higher education. The biggest predictor of a scientist's religion (or lack thereof) was still the religion of their parents.
I think this survey has revealed some heartening information about the scientific community (at least in USA). Scientists that are also religious already understand the tensions between science and faith, and how to resolve them. These religious scientists are also more likely to be accepted into faith-based communities and have the best chance of imparting good scientific information. As long as they are not to scared to 'come out' to their colleagues, there is a great opportunity for some useful dialogue in the science vs. religion debate.
Ecklund, Elaine and Christopher Scheitle 2007. ‘Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.’ Social Problems 54: 289–307.
May 10, 2010
Ban the Burqa
This story aired on a current affairs program last night. It talks about France's possible ban on the burqa and niqab - clothing which is designed to cover the wearer's face. This is a very contentious issue so I liked the programs approach of interviewing a Muslim woman who chooses to wear the burqa. She, and others like her, will be the ones who have their rights infringed if this new law is passed.
Banning the burqa has been done before in certain public buildings in both Egypt and Turkey but France and Belgium are going further in implementing a ban in all public places. The burqa itself is like a mobile prison that traps the woman and prevents her from properly interacting with the rest of society. It is a symbol of female submission and is often forced upon wives by their controlling husbands. I can see why many people, including many Muslims, come down on the side of a ban.
On the other hand, banning a form of clothing seems like a fairly big imposition on personal freedom. In modern Western civilisations wives are free to leave their controlling husbands at any time. Perhaps more focus needs to go on promoting women's shelters and prosecuting domestic violence incidences. Another argument that could be made is that by banning the burqa, these women won't even go outside and will become even more isolated from society. This result is the opposite of the intended goal.
As much as I sympathise with Muslim women's rights groups and Islamic religious leaders who want to see and end to this Saudi and Talibani practice the way to deal with the problem in a free civilisation that values both equality and liberty is not through a restrictive ban. Empowering these women through education and example will allow them to choose liberty for themselves. Our laws should support them when they decide to make that choice, not force that choice upon them.
Banning the burqa has been done before in certain public buildings in both Egypt and Turkey but France and Belgium are going further in implementing a ban in all public places. The burqa itself is like a mobile prison that traps the woman and prevents her from properly interacting with the rest of society. It is a symbol of female submission and is often forced upon wives by their controlling husbands. I can see why many people, including many Muslims, come down on the side of a ban.
On the other hand, banning a form of clothing seems like a fairly big imposition on personal freedom. In modern Western civilisations wives are free to leave their controlling husbands at any time. Perhaps more focus needs to go on promoting women's shelters and prosecuting domestic violence incidences. Another argument that could be made is that by banning the burqa, these women won't even go outside and will become even more isolated from society. This result is the opposite of the intended goal.
As much as I sympathise with Muslim women's rights groups and Islamic religious leaders who want to see and end to this Saudi and Talibani practice the way to deal with the problem in a free civilisation that values both equality and liberty is not through a restrictive ban. Empowering these women through education and example will allow them to choose liberty for themselves. Our laws should support them when they decide to make that choice, not force that choice upon them.
May 09, 2010
Separatist sect and schooling
The New Zealand Herald has investigated further into the practices of schooling by the Exclusive Brethren. This church is a separatist sect who receive government money to teach their children a very narrow curriculum. After banning King Lear, the NZ Herald has also revealed that missing or blacked out from Exclusive Brethren textbooks are central components of a well rounded education including evolution and human sexuality.
The NZ government should not be funding these stultifying centres of religious indoctrination.
The NZ government should not be funding these stultifying centres of religious indoctrination.
May 08, 2010
Neanderthal genes in human genome
DNA sequencing of Neanderthal genome has provided evidence that Neanderthals and humans may have interbred. The 40,000 year old DNA was was decoded by Svante Pääbo, a palaeogeneticist at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany. The researchers manged to decode about two thirds of the genome in duplicate.
The team also compared the Neanderthal DNA to genomes form various human populations including French, Chinese, Papua New Guinean, and San. They found fragments of Neanderthal DNA in all modern human populations except those descended from African populations. As Neanderthals only lived in Europe and the Middle East this finding suggests that Neanderthals and human interbred some 45,000 years in the past.
Although none of the Neanderthal DNA contributed to expressed genes in modern humans comparison of the two Homo genomes with those of chimpanzees may reveal uniquely human traits that arose after the human/Neanderthal split and provided an evolutionary advantage to early humans. This was a crucial time in the evolution of humans and any discoveries in this area will be fascinating.
So with everyone of European, Asian, American, or Polynesian descent having 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, this means that Africans are now the most racially 'pure' population. I wonder what white supremacists would have to say about that?
Richard E. Green, Johannes Krause, Adrian W. Briggs, Tomislav Maricic, Udo Stenzel, Martin Kircher, et al. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science, 2010; 328 (5979): 710-722 DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021
The team also compared the Neanderthal DNA to genomes form various human populations including French, Chinese, Papua New Guinean, and San. They found fragments of Neanderthal DNA in all modern human populations except those descended from African populations. As Neanderthals only lived in Europe and the Middle East this finding suggests that Neanderthals and human interbred some 45,000 years in the past.
Although none of the Neanderthal DNA contributed to expressed genes in modern humans comparison of the two Homo genomes with those of chimpanzees may reveal uniquely human traits that arose after the human/Neanderthal split and provided an evolutionary advantage to early humans. This was a crucial time in the evolution of humans and any discoveries in this area will be fascinating.
So with everyone of European, Asian, American, or Polynesian descent having 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, this means that Africans are now the most racially 'pure' population. I wonder what white supremacists would have to say about that?
Richard E. Green, Johannes Krause, Adrian W. Briggs, Tomislav Maricic, Udo Stenzel, Martin Kircher, et al. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science, 2010; 328 (5979): 710-722 DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021
May 07, 2010
Free speech in the UK?
Not if the topic is religion.
In this first case, Harry Taylor (59) left leaflets satirising aspects of the Christian and Islamic religions at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. For leaving these cartoons in a public place, Mr Taylor was convicted of causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm, or distress. Mr Taylor has been convicted on similar charges in the past and is being treated for depression.
The second case involves a Christian preacher, Dale McAlpine (42) who was arrested after allegedly speaking out against sins listed in the Bible - including homosexuality. Mr McAlpine also faces a charge of causing harassment, alarm, or distress.
While the majority of Christians or atheist probably would not support the actions of either Mr Taylor or Mr McAlpine, the overuse of the public order act in Britain is something both sides of the theological debate can agree on. If we want to have these discussions then it is important that even the most extreme speech is protected. Dropping leaflet or holding an impromptu sermon hardly seem like matters that should involve the police.
In this first case, Harry Taylor (59) left leaflets satirising aspects of the Christian and Islamic religions at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. For leaving these cartoons in a public place, Mr Taylor was convicted of causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm, or distress. Mr Taylor has been convicted on similar charges in the past and is being treated for depression.
The second case involves a Christian preacher, Dale McAlpine (42) who was arrested after allegedly speaking out against sins listed in the Bible - including homosexuality. Mr McAlpine also faces a charge of causing harassment, alarm, or distress.
While the majority of Christians or atheist probably would not support the actions of either Mr Taylor or Mr McAlpine, the overuse of the public order act in Britain is something both sides of the theological debate can agree on. If we want to have these discussions then it is important that even the most extreme speech is protected. Dropping leaflet or holding an impromptu sermon hardly seem like matters that should involve the police.
May 06, 2010
Reason Prevails
May 6th is the international day of reason. Unfortunately,this is not yet an official holiday but merely a facebook group dedicated to promoting reason. The day of reason is to be celebrated on the first Thursday of every May by engaging in rational discourse and freethought. If you're at a loss for what to do today I've found a couple of activities which will force you to think, at least until you get back to work.
The Wason test. An easy question that's hard to get right when the context is abstract shapes and numbers, but give make it a social situation and the solution will pop out at you.
Optical illusions trick your brain by containing something unexpected. These five should get you started, I especially like the Thatcher effect on Obama.
The Monty Hall dilemma. An oldy but a goody. Stick or switch? If you already know the answer for three choices, what's the best strategy for four or five doors?
Finally, ExtantDodo provide a great run down of logical fallacies which can muck up clear thinking. Enjoy!
The Wason test. An easy question that's hard to get right when the context is abstract shapes and numbers, but give make it a social situation and the solution will pop out at you.
Optical illusions trick your brain by containing something unexpected. These five should get you started, I especially like the Thatcher effect on Obama.
The Monty Hall dilemma. An oldy but a goody. Stick or switch? If you already know the answer for three choices, what's the best strategy for four or five doors?
Finally, ExtantDodo provide a great run down of logical fallacies which can muck up clear thinking. Enjoy!
May 05, 2010
Did atheism cause the atrocities of the 20th century?
An argument that often comes up in the religion debate is whether atheism can be responsible for the crimes committed by atheists. In response to the claims that Christianity lead to the inquisition, witch-hunts, the crusades, and slavery Christians regularly respond that atheism does not have a perfect record. If these crimes can be blamed on Christianity then surely the crimes of atheists such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot can be blamed on atheism.
There are multiple problems with this argument. The first is that it is fallacious, being both an argumentum ad consequentiam and a tu quoque response all in one. Although the atheist argument that Christianity leads to atrocities is also an argumentum ad consequentiam, I've only ever seen it brought up in response to the Christian claim that religion always results in positive outcomes. Even if the argument that atheism lead to the atrocities of the 20th century is true, we can still disregard it as an attempt to show atheism as a faulty position.
So, what is atheism and how could it motivate someone to commit a horrendous act? Atheism is the rejection of the claim that god exists. That's it. There is no dogma or ideology that logically flows from this position. Any other beliefs that an atheist has are separate from their atheism. An atheist could hold related ideas, such as secular humanism, but there is no direct line from atheism to any ideology. Indeed an atheist could be anti-clerical and hate everything about all religions, or they could be religious themselves as many Buddhist or Raelians are. But both positions are separate from their atheist. They is nothing implicit in atheism that could motivate anyone to action and so the argument on the evils of atheism fails here.
The next question to consider is whether religion is a motivating factor in behaviour. Perhaps the Crusades were not fought because of religion but because of some other ideology. This is clearly false. Many knights joined the Crusades specifically because the church offered them forgiveness from their sins and the Crusades themselves were fought to convert heathens to Christianity. Religion itself was the ideology and dogma that motivated people to action. Theism (the acceptance of god's existence) is the equivalent of atheism and cannot drive behaviour. However, add in a religious motivator like Christianity and the result can be great good or great evil.
What really motivated the communist and fascist dictators of the 20th century was an adherence to the ideology of their respective parties. The fascist dictators - Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler - were all closely intertwined with the Catholic church. Franco was a Catholic and made Catholicism the official religion of Spain. Both Mussolini and Hitler were probably atheists but used Catholicism to achieve their goals and motivate their followers. Both signed concordats with the Vatican and promoted their own piety in public. The fault here clearly lies with religion rather than atheism.
Turning to communism the picture is slightly different. Communist regimes are officially atheist but that does not mean their atrocities were committed because of their atheism (that would be to confuse correlation with causation). In the case of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot what drove their crimes was an adherence to the communist ideology. By far the biggest killer in each of their regimes was starvation due to the collectivisation of agricultural land - a direct result of communism. The second leading cause of death was murder of the property owning class in order that their property revert to the communist state. Finally, any dissenters or intellectuals were also killed as any opposition to the communist doctrine was seen as evil. At no point does atheism take a staring role in these human tragedies. Rather, a reliance and blind acceptance of communist ideology was to blame.
Any attempt to blame atheism for crimes committed by atheists necessary falls at the first step. Atheism is not and ideology, dogma, or even an -ism. It cannot inspire anyone to do anything, good or bad. Something extra must always be added. The same can be said for theism. Before theism becomes a problem, the dogma of a religion must be added. In the case of Hitler, a religious mix of Catholicism and paganism was what drove him to commit the holocaust. In the case of Stalin adherence to the ideology of communism led him to murder and starve his people. Atheism is guiltless.
There are multiple problems with this argument. The first is that it is fallacious, being both an argumentum ad consequentiam and a tu quoque response all in one. Although the atheist argument that Christianity leads to atrocities is also an argumentum ad consequentiam, I've only ever seen it brought up in response to the Christian claim that religion always results in positive outcomes. Even if the argument that atheism lead to the atrocities of the 20th century is true, we can still disregard it as an attempt to show atheism as a faulty position.
So, what is atheism and how could it motivate someone to commit a horrendous act? Atheism is the rejection of the claim that god exists. That's it. There is no dogma or ideology that logically flows from this position. Any other beliefs that an atheist has are separate from their atheism. An atheist could hold related ideas, such as secular humanism, but there is no direct line from atheism to any ideology. Indeed an atheist could be anti-clerical and hate everything about all religions, or they could be religious themselves as many Buddhist or Raelians are. But both positions are separate from their atheist. They is nothing implicit in atheism that could motivate anyone to action and so the argument on the evils of atheism fails here.
The next question to consider is whether religion is a motivating factor in behaviour. Perhaps the Crusades were not fought because of religion but because of some other ideology. This is clearly false. Many knights joined the Crusades specifically because the church offered them forgiveness from their sins and the Crusades themselves were fought to convert heathens to Christianity. Religion itself was the ideology and dogma that motivated people to action. Theism (the acceptance of god's existence) is the equivalent of atheism and cannot drive behaviour. However, add in a religious motivator like Christianity and the result can be great good or great evil.
What really motivated the communist and fascist dictators of the 20th century was an adherence to the ideology of their respective parties. The fascist dictators - Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler - were all closely intertwined with the Catholic church. Franco was a Catholic and made Catholicism the official religion of Spain. Both Mussolini and Hitler were probably atheists but used Catholicism to achieve their goals and motivate their followers. Both signed concordats with the Vatican and promoted their own piety in public. The fault here clearly lies with religion rather than atheism.
Turning to communism the picture is slightly different. Communist regimes are officially atheist but that does not mean their atrocities were committed because of their atheism (that would be to confuse correlation with causation). In the case of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot what drove their crimes was an adherence to the communist ideology. By far the biggest killer in each of their regimes was starvation due to the collectivisation of agricultural land - a direct result of communism. The second leading cause of death was murder of the property owning class in order that their property revert to the communist state. Finally, any dissenters or intellectuals were also killed as any opposition to the communist doctrine was seen as evil. At no point does atheism take a staring role in these human tragedies. Rather, a reliance and blind acceptance of communist ideology was to blame.
Any attempt to blame atheism for crimes committed by atheists necessary falls at the first step. Atheism is not and ideology, dogma, or even an -ism. It cannot inspire anyone to do anything, good or bad. Something extra must always be added. The same can be said for theism. Before theism becomes a problem, the dogma of a religion must be added. In the case of Hitler, a religious mix of Catholicism and paganism was what drove him to commit the holocaust. In the case of Stalin adherence to the ideology of communism led him to murder and starve his people. Atheism is guiltless.
May 04, 2010
The end of religion
The most interesting idea to me was that, on a world-wide scale, the non-religious (myself included) make up a substantial portion of the population. At a local level a particular religion may be followed by the majority but that does not translate into a wider acceptance. In Spain the dominant religion is Catholicism, in Greece it is Greek Orthodox, in India it is Hindu, and in Turkey it is Sunni Islam. But in each of these countries there is a substantial minority of the non-religious and their lack of belief is shared by millions around the world. When we are brought together by the communication technology of the 21st century, we truly are legion. No matter which faith you pick, at most only a billion people think you are right, billions more think you are wrong. I hope the internet can help hammer that point home for those with delusions of grandeur.
May 03, 2010
In defense of secular law
Recently, Evangelical guidance counselor Gary McFarlane lost his job due to his unwillingness to receive and council gay couples. The UK's anti-discrimination laws meant that his employer, Relate Avon, was able to terminated his employment with them. This part of the case is relatively straight forward, Mr McFarlane refused to perform his therapy services in a non-discriminatory manner and thus his termination was justified. However, Mr McFarlane appealed the dismissal on the grounds that his Christian beliefs meant that he had to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples and that firing him for his beliefs was, itself, discriminatory.
Lord Justice Laws dismissed this argument in no uncertain terms saying that "The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic." The question facing Justice Laws was whether an exception should be made for a certain religious belief when secular law is supposed to be applied equally. In this case Justice Laws was correct that Relate Avon applied an identical standard to all its employees (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist) and that making an exception for Christianity would have itself been discriminatory against the other religious positions. After all, if the exception can be made for Christianity it ought to be made for Jews, Muslims, and atheists and then there would be no point to having the law in the first place. No religious belief, said the judge, can be protected under the law "however long its tradition, however rich its culture."
Justice Laws also dismissed as "mistaken" former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey's warning that so-called discrimination against Christians may result in attacks in Britain. Carey described the High Court ruling as "deeply worrying," heralding "a 'secular state' rather than a 'neutral' one." What Mr Carey doesn't understand is that a secular state is neutral on the matter of religion, by definition. Secularism is the compromise between the religious and non-religious and under secular law everyone is treated equally regardless of their beliefs.
Rubbing a little salt in the wound, Justice Laws added "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." and that using the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified." Amen.
Lord Justice Laws dismissed this argument in no uncertain terms saying that "The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic." The question facing Justice Laws was whether an exception should be made for a certain religious belief when secular law is supposed to be applied equally. In this case Justice Laws was correct that Relate Avon applied an identical standard to all its employees (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist) and that making an exception for Christianity would have itself been discriminatory against the other religious positions. After all, if the exception can be made for Christianity it ought to be made for Jews, Muslims, and atheists and then there would be no point to having the law in the first place. No religious belief, said the judge, can be protected under the law "however long its tradition, however rich its culture."
Justice Laws also dismissed as "mistaken" former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey's warning that so-called discrimination against Christians may result in attacks in Britain. Carey described the High Court ruling as "deeply worrying," heralding "a 'secular state' rather than a 'neutral' one." What Mr Carey doesn't understand is that a secular state is neutral on the matter of religion, by definition. Secularism is the compromise between the religious and non-religious and under secular law everyone is treated equally regardless of their beliefs.
Rubbing a little salt in the wound, Justice Laws added "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." and that using the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified." Amen.
May 02, 2010
King Lear too risqué for Christian students
A Christian high-school in Kerikeri, New Zealand has sacked one of their teachers for providing her class with a copy of Shakespeare's King Lear. Suzette Martin was fired from the private Westmount School for teaching her Year 13 students the play. King Lear is commonly studied in New Zealand public schools in preparation for the NCEA English exam.
However, Westmount school is run by the Exclusive Brethren, a reclusive religious sect that pass for the local religious kooks in this country. This Christian organisation receives around $2.5 million from the government to run 15 schools nationwide, for about 1600 students. Ms Martin, who is a Christian herself, elected to fight the dismissal. Unfortunately, due to a clause in her contract that states she must clear teaching material with the school board, the school's decision to terminate her employment was upheld. As much as I dislike the situation, I have to agree that Ms Martin did violate the terms of her contract and her dismissal was perfectly legal.
The trustees of Westmount school only wanted to permit materials that “reflected Bible values” such as genocide, human sacrifice, and infinite torture but found the "embarrassing, corrupting and morally defiling" text of King Lear too risqué for their Christian students to handle. Ms Martin identified the words "whores" and "prostitutes" of particular concern to the trustees. These words appear multiple times in the Bible. In one of the more well known Biblical stories, a prostitute named Rahab helps Joshua's spies escape from the city of Jericho right before it is destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered. As a result of her obedience, Rahab and her family were rewarded and blessed (Joshua 2:1; 6:17-25). If the school board was to apply their standards consistently, the Bible would be the first book banned from this Christian school.
The problem with this story is not the unfortunate firing of Ms Martin but that these schools receive government funding. Westmount school has a clear policy to censure great works of literature so that their students are not exposed to potentially corrupting ideas. Worse, another clause in teachers' contracts means that they are prevented from encouraging their students to attend university. If the school's goal is not to expose children to new ideas and encourage further study, then they are not engaging in education. The best outcome would be for these children to be placed in a proper schooling environment. Failing that, let's at least stop the public funding of religious indoctrination and censorship.
However, Westmount school is run by the Exclusive Brethren, a reclusive religious sect that pass for the local religious kooks in this country. This Christian organisation receives around $2.5 million from the government to run 15 schools nationwide, for about 1600 students. Ms Martin, who is a Christian herself, elected to fight the dismissal. Unfortunately, due to a clause in her contract that states she must clear teaching material with the school board, the school's decision to terminate her employment was upheld. As much as I dislike the situation, I have to agree that Ms Martin did violate the terms of her contract and her dismissal was perfectly legal.
The trustees of Westmount school only wanted to permit materials that “reflected Bible values” such as genocide, human sacrifice, and infinite torture but found the "embarrassing, corrupting and morally defiling" text of King Lear too risqué for their Christian students to handle. Ms Martin identified the words "whores" and "prostitutes" of particular concern to the trustees. These words appear multiple times in the Bible. In one of the more well known Biblical stories, a prostitute named Rahab helps Joshua's spies escape from the city of Jericho right before it is destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered. As a result of her obedience, Rahab and her family were rewarded and blessed (Joshua 2:1; 6:17-25). If the school board was to apply their standards consistently, the Bible would be the first book banned from this Christian school.
The problem with this story is not the unfortunate firing of Ms Martin but that these schools receive government funding. Westmount school has a clear policy to censure great works of literature so that their students are not exposed to potentially corrupting ideas. Worse, another clause in teachers' contracts means that they are prevented from encouraging their students to attend university. If the school's goal is not to expose children to new ideas and encourage further study, then they are not engaging in education. The best outcome would be for these children to be placed in a proper schooling environment. Failing that, let's at least stop the public funding of religious indoctrination and censorship.
May 01, 2010
Jumping genes
The transfer of genetic material is well known to occur in a vertical orientation. Parents pass their genes on to their children, and their children pass those genes on to the next generation. This fact allows scientists to analyse particular genes and to use the pattern of inheritance to build the tree of life.
It is also well known that the bacteria at the base of this tree form more of a fuzzy bush. This is because bacteria are much more promiscuous than their mammalian counter-parts. While invertebrates stick exclusively to members of their own tribe, bacteria are happy to have sex with a completely different species and will even engage in necrophilia if the occasion arises. This swapping of genes between species is called horizontal gene transfer and was thought to be the purview of bacteria (and some fungi) only.
But now scientists have discovered that transposons (jumping genes) can be transmitted from parasite to host - at least in some special cases. The parasite in this case is the blood-sucking triatomine, a parasite which regularly bites humans and can carry Chagas disease. Researchers found the invertebrate had transposon DNA which was also found in some vertebrate hosts, namely the opossum and the squirrel monkey (but not humans - yet). These jumping genes were 98% identical between the different hosts.
Although this is a clearly a rare and special case, it does demonstrate that genetic transfer between different species is possible. This finding increases the risk associated with genetic engineering and emphasises that once a gene is released into the ecosystem total control of the set of instructions cannot be guaranteed. On the other hand, what scientists do when genes are artificially transferred from one species to another is not much different to this newly discovered natural process. Perhaps this finding may help to ease the environmentalists' fear that genetic engineering is bringing Dr Frankenstein's monster to life.
Clément Gilbert, Sarah Schaack, John K. Pace II, Paul J. Brindley, Cédric Feschotte. A role for host-parasite interactions in the horizontal transfer of transposons across phyla. Nature, 2010; 464
It is also well known that the bacteria at the base of this tree form more of a fuzzy bush. This is because bacteria are much more promiscuous than their mammalian counter-parts. While invertebrates stick exclusively to members of their own tribe, bacteria are happy to have sex with a completely different species and will even engage in necrophilia if the occasion arises. This swapping of genes between species is called horizontal gene transfer and was thought to be the purview of bacteria (and some fungi) only.
But now scientists have discovered that transposons (jumping genes) can be transmitted from parasite to host - at least in some special cases. The parasite in this case is the blood-sucking triatomine, a parasite which regularly bites humans and can carry Chagas disease. Researchers found the invertebrate had transposon DNA which was also found in some vertebrate hosts, namely the opossum and the squirrel monkey (but not humans - yet). These jumping genes were 98% identical between the different hosts.
Although this is a clearly a rare and special case, it does demonstrate that genetic transfer between different species is possible. This finding increases the risk associated with genetic engineering and emphasises that once a gene is released into the ecosystem total control of the set of instructions cannot be guaranteed. On the other hand, what scientists do when genes are artificially transferred from one species to another is not much different to this newly discovered natural process. Perhaps this finding may help to ease the environmentalists' fear that genetic engineering is bringing Dr Frankenstein's monster to life.
Clément Gilbert, Sarah Schaack, John K. Pace II, Paul J. Brindley, Cédric Feschotte. A role for host-parasite interactions in the horizontal transfer of transposons across phyla. Nature, 2010; 464
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)