The latest Symphony of Science installment.
Filed under: Science | Tagged: A Wave of Reason, Symphony of Science | Leave a comment »
The limits of science
Posted on November 21, 2010 by Michael
Jerry Coyne has a post about the NCSE enabling woo, but there’s one part near his introduction that really stood out to me.
This accommodationism is most annoying when the NCSE assumes its science-has-its-limits stance, a stance designed to show that beyond those borders lies the proper and goodly realm of religion. Yes, of course science has some limits—it can’t (yet) explain why I love the paintings of Kandinsky and others find them abstract and boring. But how on earth do these “limits” somehow justify belief in the palpable nonsense of faith?
Going by his use of the word “yet”, it sounds like he doesn’t see science as being limited in theory. His post doesn’t focus on this point, so it isn’t entirely clear if that’s his position. However, it is my position.
Science is not limited in and of itself. It can tell us absolutely everything about the Universe. That includes telling us why we think something is beautiful or moral or why we love someone. Science is not theoretically limited in any way from being able to tell us all these things. The problem, however, that arises here is the whole “yet” thing. It causes confusion. Let me explain.
Science is limited in telling us a vast majority of things we might want to know. Right now it cannot tell us why we make all the choices we do or why some of us might find the ocean beautiful. But that is not a matter of science being limited in and of itself. In actuality, the limit comes from human ability, a lack of technology, a lack of necessity, the short span of time in which one person will live, the short time the entirety of the human race has and will exist, etc. We limit science; science does not limit us.
Filed under: Science | Tagged: Accommodationism, Jerry Coyne, Limits, NCSE, Science, Why Evolution is True, Woo | Leave a comment »
Gaze-following in non-social reptiles
Posted on November 15, 2010 by Michael
Over at The Thoughtful Animal is a fascinating post about gaze-following. That’s when an animal sees where another animal is gazing and in turn looks towards the same location. Jason Goldman gives a better explanation.
Have you ever been at a party with lots of people chatting away, when for some unexplainable reason you felt compelled to turn and look at the front door of your friend’s house…and just as you were looking, someone was just coming in from outside and closing the door? You couldn’t have heard the door open since there was so much noise already inside – more likely you noticed that other people were looking at the front door. All of this probably happened without any explicit intention or awareness. If several others are all directing their attention at a specific point in space, there might be something important there. We’re naturally aware of where others are looking. And so are lots of other animals.
Goldman continues about a study carried out on the red-footed tortoise. I’m not going to merely repeat what he says in the details, so do read the post for all ins-and-outs, but I will repost the conclusion. (It’s still worth the read even if you already know the result!*)
There was a clear difference between the conditions, with the observer tortoises looking up in the experimental condition significantly more than in either of the control conditions. This was the first study to demonstrate that reptiles are able to follow the gaze of conspecifics, suggesting that gaze following may occur more often in the animal kingdom than previously thought.
It is possible that the common ancestor of the three amniotic classes – birds, mammals, and reptiles – possessed the ability to co-orient and follow the gaze of others, rather than gaze-following having evolved two or three separate times. There was theoretically little selective pressure for such an ability to have emerged in this particular species, given their solitary lifestyle. Another possibility, however, is that gaze-sensitivity may be innate, and that gaze-following builds on this innate mechanism through associative learning. This could also explain the results of this experiment, as the tortoises had six months of social experiences prior to the beginning of the study. Ideally, this study could be repeated in red-footed tortoises that did not have significant social experience. It is possible that co-orienting is unique among reptiles to red-footed tortoises, though it is at least as likely that co-orienting behavior is common among the superorder chelonia – turtles, tortoises, and terrapins – among all reptiles, or potentially among all amniotes. At present, each explanation seems equally reasonable.
*You know I mean something when I take the road of the lazy writer and start using exclamation points.
Filed under: Science | Tagged: Bugnyar, chelonia, Gaze following in the red-footed tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria), Gaze-following, Gaze-sensitivity, Huber, Jason Goldman, Mandl, Red-footed tortoise, The Thoughtful Animal, Wilkinson | Leave a comment »
HIV: It’s still all about shape
Posted on November 8, 2010 by Michael
The last time I wrote about HIV, I made the point that biology is all about shape; keep that idea in mind and a lot of things will suddenly start making a lot of sense. In that instance, I was writing about antibodies that were able to nearly universally attack HIV based upon one particular location on the virus which did not change shape. In this post I want to talk about a new study concerning protein differences.
To define host genetic effects on the outcome of a chronic viral infection, we performed genome-wide association analysis in a multiethnic cohort of HIV-1 controllers and progressors, and analyzed the effects of individual amino acids within the classical HLA proteins
HIV controllers are just what you probably think they are: they are people whose bodies are able to control the impact of HIV. They maintain healthy levels of helper T Cells. Progressors, on the other hand, are people who follow the expected course after they contract HIV. In this study, a large group of controllers were taken and had their genomes compared to progressor genomes. Researchers found more than 300 (313, to be exact) SNPs on the chromosome 6 that separated these two groups.
This is a pretty specific area with a small amount of difference. In fact, on the HLA-B protein, a difference of just 5 amino acids makes all the difference in a single groove. It appears as though this is one of the most important differences between controllers and progressors, constituting a significant region which enables the immune system to control and limit the proliferation of HIV. The amino acid sequence changes the shape of the groove in controllers as compared to progressors. This change protects the controller against HIV and its deadly consequences.
Precisely how this change in shape keeps HIV from turning into AIDS has not yet been made clear, but it is very promising. Given the current state of research, I’m willing to predict we’ll see a cure for HIV before we see a cure for cancer.
Filed under: Science | Tagged: AIDS, Controllers, HIV, HIV-1, HLA Proteins, Progressors | 1 Comment »
Happy Carl Sagan Day
Posted on November 6, 2010 by Michael
I just made it. With 5 Eastern Standard Time minutes to spare, I have learned that it is Carl Sagan Day today. In honor of the great man right now, I can really only offer the small gesture of a clip post here. But as a greater honor, we can all do everything we can to come to a greater appreciation of science; we can reject intelligent design as the bullshit that it is (and let’s emphasize the “b” in “bullshit”). We can fight against the quacks out there. We can promote and love and have a passion about science. It is our greatest tool.
Filed under: News, Science | Tagged: Carl Sagan, Carl Sagan Day, Cosmos, Science | Leave a comment »
The right sort of answer
Posted on November 4, 2010 by Michael
Far, far, far too many people hate when they don’t get a direct and simple answer. Sometimes that’s what we actually want. Other times, it’s an effective tool. In fact, it’s the number one tool in politics: make it simple and repeat it over and over and it’s true. The more direct and more simple, the closer to the truth for more people. And, of course, I hate that. Want a real answer? I mean, a real, real answer? Check out this Feynman video.
Filed under: Science | Tagged: Magnets, Richard Feynman | 3 Comments »
On the conflict between science and religion
Posted on October 31, 2010 by Michael
It’s often said, ‘Sure, other people’s religion conflicts with science, but they aren’t representative of the majority. Besides, my religion isn’t in conflict with science!”
Here’s a simple test to find out if your religion conflicts with science:
1) Do you believe in miracles?
2) Do you believe in a creator who directed evolution?
3) Do you believe prayers work? (And why doesn’t your god heal amputees?)
4) Do you think faith is a virtue?
If you answered “Yes” to any of these, and you derive your answer(s) from your religion, then your religion does conflict with science. Let me explain.
1) A miracle is a suspension or interruption of a physical law or constant. The whole idea in science is that physical laws and constants are true at all times and in all places. If you believe they can be arbitrarily interrupted, your belief is in conflict with science; science does not allow for the interruption of, say, the speed of light in a vacuum. You can believe that the speed of light in a vacuum can be changed by your god, but (aside from having no evidence for such a claim) your belief is one that is anti-scientific.
2) Evolution is a natural process that is based upon the changing of allelic frequencies within a population over time. It happens as a result of genetic change and interaction with the environment. It is a natural process that is contingent upon a long series of chance happening and natural selection; under the same environmental conditions, a re-running of the history of life would give different results. You can believe your god made it so humans (or any other animal) would be inevitable, but your belief is anti-scientific.
3) The science is in and prayer does not work. You can still believe it does, but your belief is anti-scientific.
4) Science is a valuing of reason, experiment, and, ultimately, evidence. Faith is the anti-thesis of this. You can still believe faith is a good thing, but your belief is anti-scientific; it is not a belief that is found within science.
Bonus conflict: Philosophy
Do you believe in the philosophical reasoning of the First Cause? This is the argument that says everything has a cause and thus the Universe has a cause. (And then it is randomly declared that God is eternal.) This goes against science because Newton told us that everything which has a force has an opposite and equal force. This is dependent upon observations made within the Universe. Your philosophy goes beyond this evidence and makes a conclusion which is independent of the sort of reasoning Newton used. In other words, if you say the Universe has a cause because everything else has a cause, you aren’t making sense. Everything within the Universe has a cause. That’s all science tells us. We can presume a reason for the Universe since it, well, exists, but we cannot use the scientific reasoning used by Newton; he was talking about forces within the Universe.
Filed under: Religions, Science | Tagged: Conflict, Evolution, Miracles, Philosophy, Prayer, Reason, religion, Science | 7 Comments »
Libby Mitchell would be great for education
Posted on September 25, 2010 by Michael
In deep contrast to creationist Paul LePage, Libby Mitchell would be excellent for education in Maine.
Mitchell said Maine schools need to emphasize science curriculum more.
“(We) need to make sure they get it and know that there’s a future for them,” she said. “Maine has a school of math and science, which has been very successful, but all of our curriculum needs to focus on that.”
Whereas LePage and the Republican party are hostile towards science, Mitchell recognizes its crucial importance to the future of the state. She knows that in areas of conservation and new technology (especially for clean energy) it’s going to take a lot of quality education. Maine, just like every single place in the entire world, needs a strong core of people who have highly specialized scientific knowledge.
Mitchell also knows that the answer isn’t to just give away degrees – which is precisely what LePage has suggested we do. It’s obvious to anyone remotely intelligent that the biggest obstacle to students gaining the knowledge they need to get high quality jobs is money: people can’t afford to go to college. Mitchell, seeing this overwhelmingly obvious fact, has a solution.
Maine has far too few citizens with a college degree: only 37% of Maine citizens aged 25 to 64 hold a college degree compared with the New England average of 47%. Creating a public/private partnership for a matching grant program to guarantee tuition for the first year at the university system, community colleges, or Maine Maritime Academy will expand access to higher education and degree completion. This will also help lifelong learners by giving people looking to make job transitions help in getting the education and re-training they need.
Rather than make it easier for people to gain degrees, Mitchell is going to make it easier for people to gain knowledge. If you’re a Maine citizen and you don’t want your degree to mean less and less because absolutely everyone can get one for virtually nothing, vote Libby Mitchell.
Filed under: News, Science | Tagged: education, Libby Mitchell, Maine governor, Paul LePage | 7 Comments »
For the Sake of Science 