What if the right role for science is to shatter the frame?

i-89c6bc933e52057cf77c7485797cd296-blog_against_theocracy.gif

Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney have a short policy paper in Science that criticizes scientists for how they communicate to the public. Mooney says that “many scientists don’t really know what they’re up against when suddenly thrust into the media spotlight and interactions with politicians” — I agree completely. We are not trained to be glib and glossy, and we simply do not come across as well as we could. We’re also not really that interested, generally speaking, in the kind of presentation that plays well in 3 minutes on a news broadcast. It’s more than a cosmetological failure, though; as Nisbet says, “scientists, without misrepresenting scientific information, must learn to shape or ‘frame’ contentious issues in a way that make them personally relevant to diverse segments of the public, while taking advantage of the media platforms that reach these audiences.” I can go along with that, too.

[Read more…]

Future science media star

On The Infidel Guy, Abby of ERV goes up against a ranting crackpot, Leonard Horowitz, who thinks AIDS is the product of a secret conspiracy. She handles herself very well. It’s painful to listen to—Horowitz is a master of the bellowing Gumby style of discourse, and he believes in some very looney things. He’s also smart enough, though, that he knows some of his stuff is going to go over as immensely kooky to an informed audience, and he gets evasive at several points.

Some highlights occur when he’s called “Mr Horowitz”, and he goes on an indignant tirade about his credentials. Another is when he ducks and dodges on the issue of evolution, and tries to claim that the “brand new science of genetics and electrogenetics” (electrogenetics?) is going to require major changes of our understanding of evolution. Unfortunately, he doesn’t get into his really fun stuff:

Among the world’s foremost authorities on the subject of bioterrorism, vaccination risks, and public health, Dr. Horowitz’s expert diagnosis here dovetails perfectly with Bible prophecies. Pay special attention to his disclosures regarding the infamous “Mark of the Beast.” Dr. Horowitz reveals sacred Bible codes that give expanded meaning to the infamous “666” prophecy (Rev: 13:18) while implicating widely trusted vaccinations, medical biochips, politicians, and institutions that have advanced some of the most horrific population-controlling ploys ever conceived. Anthrax, smallpox, and vaccinations are all part of the same deadly swindle.

Kudos to Abby for being able to deal with such a fraud and kook, and being far smarter than Horowitz, but Reggie Finley needs to get better guests than a quack like that.

Wells’ flagrantly false commentary on Hox complex structure

This evening, I am watching an episode of that marvelous and profane Western, Deadwood, as I type this; it is a most excellently compensatory distraction, allowing me to sublimate my urge to express myself in uncompromisingly vulgar terms on Pharyngula. This is an essential coping mechanism.

I have been reading Jonathan Wells again.

If you’re familiar with Wells and with Deadwood, you know what I mean. You’ll just have to imagine that I am Al Swearingen, the brutal bar-owner who uses obscenities as if they were lyric poetry, while Wells is E.B. Farnum, the unctuous rodent who earns the contempt of every man who meets him. That imagination will have to hold you, because I’m going to restrain myself a bit; I’m afraid Wells would earn every earthy sobriquet I could imagine, but I’ll confine myself to the facts. They’re enough. The man completely misrepresents the results of a paper and a whole discipline, and does it baldly on the web, as if he doesn’t care that his dishonesty and ignorance leave a greasy, reeking trail behind him.

Let’s start with Wells’ own words.

[Read more…]

It’s sort of like eavesdropping

I feel a bit peculiar watching these “bloggingheads” episodes — it’s like sitting in on two people’s private conversation, and by the nature of the medium, you can’t even join in. And then the recent Althouse spectacle made me cringe — it was just too Jerry Springer, and I half-expected a tall bald bouncer to show up and make sure the trailer-trash harridan didn’t actually claw anyone’s eyes out.

The recent science episode with John Horgan and George Johnson makes me feel a little better about it, though; it’s more of a chatty and casual intellectual conversation. It’s still a bit limiting that no one else can join in, but I can appreciate that a thousand people chattering on a page would be much worse.

When I heard them, though, I knew their remarks about string theory would set off an informed but indignant response somewhere. What do you know, I was right!

Don’t blame the dinosaurs

The mammalian tree is rooted deeply and branched early!

i-1fe2f54858685f9fb3edadf51d769396-mammal_tree.gif
(click for larger image)
All orders are labelled and major lineages are coloured as follows: black, Monotremata; orange, Marsupialia; blue, Afrotheria; yellow, Xenarthra; green, Laurasiatheria; and red, Euarchontoglires. Families that were reconstructed as non-monophyletic are represented multiple times and numbered accordingly. Branch lengths are proportional to time, with the K/T boundary indicated by a black, dashed circle. The scale indicates Myr.

That’s the message of a new paper in Nature that compiled sequence data from 4,510 mammalian species (out of 4,554) to assembly that lovely diagram above. Challenging the ‘conventional wisdom’ that mammalian diversity is the product of an opportunistic radiation of species after the dinosaurs were wiped out at the end of the Cretaceous 65 million years ago, the authors instead identified two broad periods of evolutionary expansion among the mammals: an early event 100-85 million years ago when the extant orders first appeared, and a radiation of modern families in the late Eocene/Miocene. A key point is that there is no change in rates of taxon formation across the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary—mammalian diversity was rich before the dinosaurs disappeared.

[Read more…]

Michael Egnor, Whig historian

He mangles science, now he defames history. Michael Egnor is like the Swiss army knife of creationist hackery.

Former Vice President Al Gore famously claimed to have invented the Internet because years ago he was in the Senate and sponsored a bill. The assertion that Charles Darwin’s theory was indispensable to classical and molecular genetics is a claim of an even lower order. Darwin’s theory impeded the recognition of Mendel’s discovery for a third of a century, and Darwin’s assertion that random variation was the raw material for biological complexity was of no help in decoding the genetic language of DNA. The single incontrovertible Darwinian contribution to the field of medical genetics was eugenics, which is the Darwinian theory that humans can be bred for social and character traits, like animals. The field of medical genetics is still recovering from eugneics, which was Darwin’s only gift to medicine.

Wow—that is simply breathlessly ahistorical.

[Read more…]

Busy busy busy

There are a couple of events going on here in Morris this week that I’ll be participating in, and that any of you in the region might find worth seeing. First, tonight:

Everyone is cordially invited to the last session of

THE 31st
MIDWEST PHILOSOPHY COLLOQUIUM

Personal Identity

Eric T. Olson

(Professor of Philosophy, University of Sheffield, UK)

Will present

“When Do We Begin and End?”

Monday, March 26, 7:30 p.m., Newman Catholic Center
306 East 4th Street, Morris

The gradual nature of development from fertilization to birth and beyond leaves it uncertain when we come into being; advances in medical technology leave it increasingly uncertain when we cease to exist. Many philosophers have tried to answer these questions. Professor Olson will argue that most of these answers are wrong, and that a simpler answer follows from the apparent fact that we are biological organisms.

Then, tomorrow night (Tuesday, 27 March, 6:00 at the Common Cup Coffee House), it’s time for Café Scientifique!

“So… what am I looking at?”

Kristin Kearns

An introduction to the celestial objects
visible through the UMM 16-inch telescope.

An observing session at the University’s telescope might begin with a view of the Moon and some of the more photogenic planets then, as the sky darkens, move on to a wide variety of stellar views, from planetary nebulae to globular clusters and maybe even a supernova remnant. On a clear, moonless night the telescope may probe even deeper into the darkness to find galaxies beyond our own. Whether you’ve looked through a telescope or just always wanted to, this talk will fill in the details behind the images. I’ll discuss the physical nature and cosmic context of those “smoke rings” and “cotton balls” you see in the eyepiece.

If the skies are clear, Kristin will also open up the UMM Observatory to the public after the talk, so you can come on down and see some stars.

You might as well just come on out here and spend a few days in town.

Scientific information must be free! Now where to put it…

Do you read the ‘supplementary information’ in science articles? If you’re familiar with the way journal articles work, they publish a traditional and formally formatted article in the print version of the journal, but now they often also have a supplementary information section stored in an online database that contains material that would be impractical or impossible to cram into print: raw data, spreadsheets, multimedia such as movie files. This is important stuff, especially if you want to dig deeper or re-analyze or otherwise rework the information.

Another important function is, I think, preserving data. In a previous life, I moved into an old lab that was piled high with the cluttered debris of the previous tenant’s scientific career; some we boxed up and moved to a storage space (where it is probably moldering, untouched since the early 90s) and the remainder found a resting place in a dumpster. I felt terrible about that, but it was a necessity.

Maybe it won’t always be such a necessity, though. The ‘supplemental information’ section of science papers represents a way to archive data that would otherwise lie in heaps at the bottom of file cabinets until lost. Those sections have their own problems—’supplemental information’ is an amorphous category that can contain anything, is clearly going to require some kind of formal metadata support, and is going to be a storage headache for publishers. We might also wonder whether the big publishing companies are also the appropriate repositories for what ought to be publicly accessible data.

One other possibility is storing raw data on these growing free databases. YouTube is essentially a free database specifically for storing any (almost) video data — I’ve seen some scientific work tucked away there, although it also creates new concerns: resolution is limited, you never know when the YouTube management might decide they dislike you and throw away your work, and a lot of raw scientific data isn’t going to have a large audience and therefore isn’t going to draw in a lot of ad revenue. Another interesting possibility is Google Base. Did you know that Google is providing a free online database in which you can store just about anything? Free storage, public access and searching, a reliable host — it’s a wonderful idea, as long as you don’t mind Google owning all of the information in the world.

Basics: Neurulation

When we had last seen our basic embryo, it had gone through gastrulation — a process in which cells of a two-layered sheet had moved inward, setting up the three germ layers (endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm) of the early embryo. In particular, cells at the organizer, a tissue that induces or organizes migrating cells, had rolled inwards to set up specific axial mesoderm structures: the prechordal plate, which will underlie cranial structures, and the notochord, which resides under the future hindbrain and spinal cord. At this point, the embryo has an outer layer of ectoderm, and lying under part of it, a band of prechordal mesoderm and notochord. In addition, the ectoderm is loaded with a molecule called BMP-4, a member of the TGF-β family of signaling molecules, and under its influence will go on to make skin, not nervous system. So what next?

[Read more…]