2010: FTSOS in review, January to March

Yes, this is one of those lists. And there are going to be four parts. Deal.

January:
There was some good stories from this month, but I can only focus on a couple. One of my favorites was the discovery that pushed tetrapod evolution back 18 million years. This was a quantitative change – not a qualitative one. That means that the discovery did nothing to change the relations scientists have constructed for species at and around that time (397 million years ago); it only increased the time frame in which we recognize tetrapods to have lived.

This was also the month when I was attacked by a bunch of caricature feminists. The whole issue arose over my position that a picture of two fat women on CNN was an objectification of fat people (because it accompanied an article about fat women). The caricature feminists took this to mean that I hate women, don’t think they should have any rights, and as I recently saw in an unrelated thread on an unrelated blog 11 months after the fact, that apparently I’m also racist.

And then there was the first threat of the Maloney Mess. It is not clear how the maker of that threat knows Maloney, but she apparently knows him well enough to be aware of the profession of his wife. (Everyone now knows she’s a lawyer since she amateurishly issued a cease-and-desist request, but that happened only recently.)

February:
The big hubbub during this month was the suspension of FTSOS. The reason had to do with Andreas Moritz and Christopher Maloney. I hardly need to go into great detail at this point, but briefly: I made a post criticizing Moritz nearly a year earlier. I later made a post criticizing Maloney. The two got in contact with each other as a direct result. Moritz emailed WordPress with information provided to him by Maloney. The claim was that Maloney was a doctor (not true) and I said he was not a doctor (true). Since there was a threat of a lawsuit, WordPress demanded I change or delete my statement. I did. But I was suspended anyway. As it turns out, Maloney is a naturopathic doctor, not a real doctor, so I was always in the right. But that wasn’t important to anyone at the time. Well, except Simon Singh, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and a number of other defenders of real science who helped publicize the censorship. And presto, I am back.

This was also the month when FTSOS hit the arbitrary mark of 100,000 views. I have always been open about the fact that I am fortunate to have images show up in Google Image, but the vast majority of views come from posts with substance. And really, that has always been the trick: Put up content that interests people and they will read it.

One of the biggest non-Moritz/Maloney posts was the one about circumcision. I always feel the reactions to these sort of posts end up very skewed because much of the absurdly vehement opposition is just that – absurd and vehement. It is a vocal minority being vocal. But they do have legitimate concerns. In fact, I suspect if I wrote that article again, it would go through some significant revision. But I do not see myself ever sharing the inane passion against circumcision that the anti-snip crowd displays.

March:
My favorite post from this month was the one on mitochondria and microsatellites. I wrote about the difference between how the two are utilized in studies on populations and evolution. Mitochondria is good for the long-term, but microsatellites can be very useful over short periods, perhaps over a few thousands generations. In the post I cited one study on the spatial and temporal structures of populations of Atlantic cod off the coast of Canada and Maine, extending to Nantucket Shoals.

There was also the heartbreaking story of Constance McMillen. Her bigoted southern school would not allow her to attend her prom with her girlfriend because, well, it was a bigoted school. A judge ruled as much, but the school then encouraged parents to create a private prom to which Constance would not be invited. Constance has since moved on, receiving scholarships from celebrities and others who respect her for being a human being who matters.

Another heartbreaker comes from the post about Kelly Glossip. Kelly was in a relationship with Dennis Engelhard, a police officer who died while on duty. And even though they had long shared their lives together, Kelly was not allowed to receive any sort of survivor benefits because the two were legally prevented from entering a same-sex marriage. I think if more people bothered to realize how their anti-gay, pro-bigot stances hurt real human beings, we would start to see a lot less opposition to equality.

Finally, I have to break with the short-lived tradition of only featuring three posts per month because I just have to mention my article about the reasonableness of absolute uncertainty. I wanted to explain what atheists mean when they say “There’s probably no God” since so many people seem to think atheism is the same as certainty. It is not.

Expect April to June tomorrow.

Thought of the day

One of the biggest whines I hear about science blogs is that they are not enough about science. Of course, this whine only arises when the focus of the blog is pro-atheism. This leads me to conclude two things:

  • This is just another way for people tell atheists to shut; it’s disingenuous.
  • People do not understand any of the arguments being put forth by these pro-atheist blogs.

The reason a lot of pro-atheist science blogs focus on issues which, at least at first glance, do not appear to be very science-y is that conveying the latest research is not the only way to defend and promote science. For instance, having a wider appeal is going to gain a wider audience. If PZ only wrote about research like this, how many people would read about it? The reason more than a handful of individuals even know it exists is that they are already reading Pharyngula for a lot of the other content.

Another way to defend and therefore promote science is to attack religion. It is a fact that religious thinking harms science on the whole. (Please note “on the whole”. I have little doubt that something like “A-ha! But what about Excellent Scientist X? He’s religious!” just popped through at least a couple heads.) We have people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. We have those who deny the fact of evolution. We have parents who believe faith healing is okay. We have restrictions on research for bogus ethical concerns. All these things are a direct result of religion. For anyone who believes science deserves the highest mantle, talking about the harms of religion is one extremely effective method towards bringing science up to its proper place.

Common sense driving

Look, things don’t always work out the way we want when it snows.

But this was coming into my driveway. I had a small shot of nestling my car into its spot if I could just get by a drift or two. Obviously it didn’t work out. And that’s okay because, even though it sucks for me, it only matters for me. I’m not causing other people on the road to be in any more or less danger.

With that in mind, I have this advice for people who have to drive in snowy weather: When approaching a hill, DON’T go 20 mph. That’s horseshit driving. I just don’t understand why people don’t have this utterly minor foresight. And it happens every snowstorm. Sure enough, today was no exception. I waited for the car in front of me to finish fishtailing its way to the top of a hill before I even bothered to begin my non-tailing, common-fucking-sense drive up the snowy, slippery hill. And how did I do it? I got a moderate amount of speed beforehand. It was not difficult; it was not dangerous – in fact, the car in front of me was the most reckless driver on that stretch of road for quite some time. There’s such a thing as being overcautious. And it is far from safe.

Jackasses.

Thought of the day

I’m generally not a fan of the word “privilege”. It sounds like an uppity (in the non-racist sense) word that people use to be condescending. It is important to recognize the greater fortune some of us have over others, but I don’t see the use of hoity-toity words as helping anything. Besides, it’s accusatory, as if it’s the fault of the fortunate that they have “privilege”.

Christmas music

It’s beyond me why so many people say they hate Christmas music.

Thought of the day

There are some phrases, refrains, points, etc that will work for a person or group for awhile, but when the opposition starts making a mockery of them, they pretty much have to be dropped, if only for the sake of quality rhetoric. For example, President Obama pointed out for a long time that he inherited a terrible economy. He’s right, of course. And, in fact, we still have to blame Bush and Republican policies (deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc) for getting us in this mess. But that isn’t something the President can do very easily anymore because conservative pundits have made an issue out of the idea of blaming Bush.

But religion has some pretty good ones, too. The one I have in mind is when dozens or hundreds of people die in some horrific accident, but one person survives. Often it will be a small child, but not always. Religious people will look to what happened and proclaim it a miracle! that that one person did not perish. Of course, even if miracles did exist (and the belief that they do is in conflict with science), I can’t see how that would be one. What about all the others that died? What about all the families that have lost loved ones? The fact that not everyone is dead doesn’t strike me as something to cheer. So I wonder: When can we all start making enough of a mockery of this religious refrain in order to get people to drop it?

Merry Christmas

I really need to update this picture.

For the love of language

I think about language a lot. I really love how much can be expressed through minor tweaks and changes and unexpected uses of words. Take for instance what on the face of the matter seems like something so silly: Anyone who’s anyone in my generation remembers the show Boy Meets World. It was a decent show that proved to be entertaining, even if it had no shame in showing a cheesy moral at the end of every episode. This one always stood out to me:

I had forgotten how bad the music was, though.

I really liked that because it was a minor change of language that made a huge difference in the meaning of what Mr. Feeney had to say. Besides that, it played off a common grammatical error we hear all the time. (The earlier parts of the episode may have also made some reference to grammar; I don’t recall.) I’m not saying it was masterful writing, but as either a pre-teen or a young teenager, it really stood out to me.

I mention this because I just came across this list of a list of The 100 Most Beautiful Words in English. It has nothing to do with sitcoms from the 90’s, nor does it involve tweaks in composition, but it is a pretty nice list. Here’s a snippet.

Halcyon: Happy, sunny, care-free.
Harbinger: Messenger with news of the future.
Imbrication: Overlapping and forming a regular pattern.
Imbroglio: An altercation or complicated situation.
Imbue: To infuse, instill.

To my readers: What word would you add? My choice (it seems to be a favorite of author Bill Bryson):

Convivial: Agreeable.

Another two quick things

First, I was recently discussing with a friend Sean Penn’s movie “Milk”, an excellent film about civil rights activist Harvey Milk. One of the points Penn’s character made again and again was that in order to advance equality for gays was (and is) to get people to realize that they know and care for someone who is gay. Once people know that anti-gay stances actually hurt real human beings, they will be less likely to cause harm to others (such as through voting against civil rights measures for gays).

And it’s true.

Watch the movie. Like I say about “Brokeback Mountain”, even people who don’t like gays can appreciate this film for its qualities as a piece of art.

Second, I’m interested to give a listen to the new stuff Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic have in the works.

According to a report by Spin Magazine, the surviving members of Nirvana regrouped for the first time in more than a decade at a “secret” Foo Fighters show in Los Angeles on Tuesday night. Of course, being that Nirvana was officially just a trio, all that means is that Foo Fighters’ frontman Dave Grohl (pictured) was joined by original Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic. However, the duo were also joined by Nirvana’s touring guitarist Pat Smear. Grohl, who sings and plays guitar for the Foos, played drums for Nirvana. The hugely influential group disbanded in 1994 following leader Kurt Cobain’s suicide.

To those paying close attention, Tuesday night’s reunion, while unexpected, should come as little surprise — it’s been widely reported that Grohl recently employed his old bassist’s services for a track which will appear on the new, forthcoming Foo Fighters album. That album, incidentally, is also being produced by Butch Vig, who masterminded Nirvana’s 1991 seminal breakthrough, ‘Nevermind.’

While the Foo Fighters used the intimate show to showcase some of their new material, the short Nirvana segment saw Novoselic and Smear join Grohl on stage to perform ‘Marigold’ — originally a b-side for the hit single ‘Heart Shaped Box,’ it’s the only original composition that Grohl contributed to Nirvana. While many celebrities were allegedly spotted in the audience, we’re guessing that Courtney Love was not one of them.

I am not, however, excited that Pat Smear is involved. He really hurt a lot of the vocals on many of Nirvana’s live songs.

Anyway. Here’s “Marigold”.

Thought of the day

The power of science has never been matched in human endeavors.