My first column is up on the Guardian web site: it’s a brief introduction to asymmetries in snails, an abbreviated version of the post that I fleshed out with a little more detail.
I have to complain a little, though: the title says the observation of shared molecules between molluscs and humans “proves” we’re related. I really don’t like the use of the word “proof”, because it doesn’t — it is compatible with the hypothesis, or it supports the idea, but biologists don’t dabble in proofs.
There’s also an error on my part: I somehow transposed the stomach and liver. I know where these organs are, seriously — I teach part of an A&P course — so I blame my too-fast typing. Now no one is ever going to let me take a scalpel to their abdomen, ever.
I wouldn’t be too upset with the title, PZ – us laymen would consider this to be proof enough. Our standards aren’t as high.
I totally agree with your criticism of the title. People have to stop using the concept of proof in scientific contexts. I really hate commercials for medical or dietary products that claim “This product has been scientifically proven to blah blah blah”. Only mathematicians and logicians are in the business of proving things – NOT SCIENTISTS.
Is this why we sometimes leave snail tracks? Bahahaha…I crack myself up…
Glad to see you contributing to such a revolutionary periodical. I have a lot of respect for the ballsy material covered in the Guardian. I was thinking of composing a post about how buying into micro-evolution is really concedeing to macroevolution as well when hox, sonichedgehog, and other control genes regulate whole body plans based on temporal expression. There was a great PLOSone paper on this topic last week. Anyone else catch it?
Sakamoto et al – Heterochronic Shift in Hox-Mediated Activation of Sonic hedgehog Leads to Morphological Changes during Fin Development
[bad joke]
What, you don’t dabble in proofs?
Might I suggest some Makers Mark, Wild Turkey, or, if you prefer your tipple from across the pond, some Laphroaig single malt.
[/bad joke]
Too bad, now you won’t be able to get in on the lucrative world of molluscan bariatric surgery.
maddogdelta @ 5: that joke may be bad, but Makers is awesome and so is Laphroaig! You win for mentioning both in one post.
The business of advertising (or the equivalent, politics) incorporates the regular rape and abuse of terminology. Think of an advertising agency as a group of highly trusted, celibate older men and words as innocent, unsuspecting little boys.
#8. Could we add politicians to “commercials for medical or dietary products” that claim scientific ‘proof'”?
“Science has proven that life begins at contraception” Jessie Helms, RIP (not!)
#9. Sometimes, actually. But I was referring to deliberate misuse of terminology in a systematic, intentional way… particularly in polls.
You should have a student proofread for you. Every writer and illustrator needs a proofreader. Doesn’t matter how good you are, you still need a proofreader.
That’s a real shame. I hear it’s quite a lot of fun.
@5:
You’d actually suggest Wild Turkey to someone? Feh! It’s barely one step up from Paramount!
OT, but I thought people here would appreciate this story from CNN: Texas governor says secession possible, and Chuck Norris calls dibs on first President of TX.
Any reason why the gene names aren’t in italics? For those of us used to reading a bit about genes and their protein products, this is a bit confusing…makes the brain stutter while reading.
The “proof” thing really is a big deal–we have to distinguish how scientists and non-scientists (not just ID people) use this word. It’s a loaded word, like the word “theory”, and we need to use those words responsibly. (I understand, PZ, that the “proof” word was foisted upon you…)
Oh, hey, yeah — I’m sure the copy I sent to them had those italicized. Weird.
Oh, well, the next one is in the works, and I don’t talk about genes at all, so that won’t be a problem.
Now no one is ever going to let me take a scalpel to their abdomen, ever.
Once they’re tied down across the altar at midnight, consent is considered as given. (Some find it sporting to offer bloodcurdling blasphemies as a safeword, just for giggles.)
From the Guardian article:
Is this linked in any way with the chirality of molecules such as amino acids, and the fact that organisms use almost exclusively the levo- and not the dextro- forms? (Maybe this is the first case ever of a dumb question!)
We (in the UK) are not supposed to be exterminating them this summer though. We’re meant to be counting them (or some types of them) instead. :-/
Well, lawyers are expected to prove guilt in a court of law. There is a commonly accepted meaning of the term along the lines of “to establish the truth of a claim by supplying evidence that justifies the claim beyond reasonable doubt,” or something in that neighborhood.
“A single gene is a small thing, but it is yet another piece in the growing body of data that reveals the fundamental relatedness of all living creatures.”
Still behind the curve, I see ;-)
“The wonderful lesson to come out of biology in the last five years is the same genes, the same parts, turn up again and again, from one species to another,” she said. “The important lesson to realize is that we’re all made of the same fabric, we’re part of the same web, and there is some humility in the idea that is appropriate.”
NYT: SCIENTIST AT WORK: Victoria Elizabeth Foe; Drawing Big Lessons From Fly Embryology
By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: Tuesday, August 10, 1993
From Simon Singh’s column there, I learn that:
She may never have wished for immortality in such a form; the Taj Mahal it isn’t. On the bright side, she gets to enjoy it. At least one hopes she does.
Only mathematicians and logicians are in the business of proving things – NOT SCIENTISTS.
Let’s talk epistemology.
Reti is normally described as disproving spontaneous generation. The word “prove” has a broader meaning than deductive proof. And even deductive proof isn’t certain, because any alleged proof might have a flaw, and deductive proofs are based on premises that may be false or inconsistent.
In the case of PZ’s article the word is probably overly strong, but I don’t think it is in the case of, say chromosomal fusion showing that humans and great apes have a common ancestor. The literature describes the evidence as “very strong” or “overwhelming”. It is, in fact, beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it is proven. Which doesn’t mean that it couldn’t still be wrong, just as convicted criminals could still be innocent (even those that confess; even those indicted by DNA evidence — it can conceivably be wrong), even as Fermat’s Last Theorem could still be wrong even though many mathematicians have looked at the (alleged) proof and haven’t found any flaw.
Er, Redi, not chess master Richard Réti — I’ve been getting them confused for years.
A superbly succinct and succinctly superb article.
Hume defined “proof” as “overwhelming empirical evidence” (mathematical proofs he called “demonstrations”). This seems rather closer to what ordinary people mean by proof, and also seems to be something scientists frequently provide.
Oh, PZ …
You’re intimidated, aren’t you?
It’s only the Manchester Guardian. But even so, your small, interesting column on snails is a small, interesting column.
Stop being reasonable! They’re not paying you for science! Go fuck something up.
I don’t see it on the Gaurdian website. Where are you PZ?
I don’t see your piece PZ. Where on the website is it?
Sorry. I spelled “The Guardian” incorrectly. Bend me over and spank me. Hard.
It’s funny seeing this discussion after just reading Giancarlo Rota’s book in which he argues that mathematicians prove theorems to provide evidence about actual mathematical entities. As he notes, in some approaches to a topic the axioms are given, in other approaches they are what is proved. In other words, mathematics is like any other science gathering a preponderance of evidence in pursuit of knowledge, and proving things is just a means of gather evidence.
So, now the only thing left to prove is yeast, though modern commercial yeasts are so reliable I rarely bother.