blueollie

Animal Camouflage (part ???)

Can you spot the snow leopards? (via Matthew Cobb at Jerry Coyne’s website)

This isn’t impossible, but it isn’t easy either.

I remember seeing a cottontail rabbit yesterday; it was sitting on some leaves and you could look right at it and not see it. I wish that I had a high resolution camera at the time.

October 31, 2014 Posted by | evolution, nature | | Leave a comment

biology, dating and social norms of yesteryear

Video: this is 30 minutes long. Upshot: she gives a nice presentation of why some male/female social norms were the way that they were (saying: “men suck” is too simplistic) and notes that many want rights but don’t want obligations.

My counter is that many women that I know are extremely fair minded; they want equal rights for women but they agree that these indeed come with equal obligations. Not everyone is that way, of course, but any large movement will have its share of dummies and slackers.

I think that she is a good example of someone who can present a different point of view but do so in a logical, cohesive manner.

Science
Yes, the current post-doc system (at least in biology) can become abusive. The lab system trains more lab scientists than there is room for.

Good news: SCOTUS rejects an appeal for a teacher that was fired for pushing creationism in the class room. Academic freedom and First Amendment rights do not extend toward protecting incompetence.

Dating application There is a dating application that weeds out poor people (or, say, the non-wealthy). Though some are outraged, I am fine with that. People can select who they want to date. Not everyone is for everyone else.

October 7, 2014 Posted by | creationism, evolution, science, social/political | | Leave a comment

Some education/academia articles

Paul Krugman: reviews a book called Seven Bad Ideas by Jeff Madrick. The idea:

In “Seven Bad Ideas: How Mainstream Economists Have Damaged America and the World,” Jeff Madrick — a contributing editor at Harper’s Magazine and a frequent writer on matters economic — argues that the professional failures since 2008 didn’t come out of the blue but were rooted in decades of intellectual malfeasance.

As a practicing and, I’d claim, mainstream economist myself, I’m tempted to quibble. How “mainstream,” really, are the bad ideas he attacks? How much of the problem is bad economic ideas per se as opposed to economists who have proved all too ready to drop their own models — in effect, reject their own ideas — when their models conflict with their political leanings? And was it the ideas of economists or the prejudices of politicians that led to so much bad policy? [...]

Such quibbles aside, “Seven Bad Ideas” tells us an important and broadly accurate story about what went wrong. Economists presented as reality an idealized vision of free markets, dressed up in fancy math that gave it a false appearance of rigor. As a result, the world was unprepared when markets went bad. Economic ideas, declared John Maynard Keynes, are “dangerous for good or evil.” And in recent years, sad to say, evil has had the upper hand.

Speaking of ideas: are we becoming afraid to make our students uncomfortable? I know what I read in the media, but I am not sure as to how accurate it is.

Note: I am not saying that students should be taught “all points of view”; some ideas have been shown to be crackpot (e. g. creationism). They shouldn’t be taught as if they are viable ideas.

Now speaking of science and religion Biologist David Barash had an article in the New York Times about the talk he has with his classes at a public university:

And that’s where The Talk comes in. It’s irresponsible to teach biology without evolution, and yet many students worry about reconciling their beliefs with evolutionary science. Just as many Americans don’t grasp the fact that evolution is not merely a “theory,” but the underpinning of all biological science, a substantial minority of my students are troubled to discover that their beliefs conflict with the course material.

Until recently, I had pretty much ignored such discomfort, assuming that it was their problem, not mine. Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without molecules, or physics without mass and energy. But instead of students’ growing more comfortable with the tension between evolution and religion over time, the opposite seems to have happened. Thus, The Talk.

There are a few ways to talk about evolution and religion, I begin. [..]

I CONCLUDE The Talk by saying that, although they don’t have to discard their religion in order to inform themselves about biology (or even to pass my course), if they insist on retaining and respecting both, they will have to undertake some challenging mental gymnastic routines. And while I respect their beliefs, the entire point of The Talk is to make clear that, at least for this biologist, it is no longer acceptable for science to be the one doing those routines, as Professor Gould and noma have insisted we do.

I recommend reading the entire article. I especially like Biology Professor Jerry Coyne’s critique of it:

As I mentioned two posts ago, David Barash, a biologist at the University of Washington who works on animal behavior and evolution, has a post in today’s New York Times, “God, Darwin, and my college biology class.” It’s basically an argument for the incompatibility of science and religion, and I like it a lot, not the least because I agree with him 100%.

But there’s one thing about his piece that bothers me: Barash’s article is about how he tells his animal behavior class that science and religion are incompatible. In other words, he’s making theological arguments at a public university. [...]

But in fact, and this is my beef (a small one, like a filet mignon): Barash may not be accommodating science with religion, but he’s still discussing their relationship, and his view of their incompatibility—in a science class. I wouldn’t do that, especially in a public university. One could even make the argument that he’s skirting the First Amendment here, mixing government (a state university) and religion. After all, if Eric Hedin can’t tell his students in a Ball State University science class that biology and cosmology are compatible with belief in God, why is it okay to say that they’re incompatible with God?

I share Professor Coyne’s trepidation here.

September 30, 2014 Posted by | economics, education, evolution, religion, science | , | Leave a comment

Misconceptions: chimps, kids and assault weapons

This New York Times Sunday Review article states what was long well known: one is far more likely to get killed by small handguns than by assault rifles. Assault rifles make big news in the spectacular but relatively rare events. But: this does not mean that there is no such thing as assault weapons. This means that banning them won’t make much of a dent in gun death statistics.

Speaking of violence: It sure appears as if chimps are naturally violent toward one another. Some argue that “effect by human intervention” has not been controlled for, but seriously, this “noble savage” stuff is nonsense.

Spanking Data seems to indicate that “spare the rod, spoil the child” is nonsense.

September 18, 2014 Posted by | evolution, nature, science, social/political | , | Leave a comment

Some interesting science stuff: elephants, washers, exploding stars, sea mushrooms

The remnants of a relatively young star are still seen expanding. What is of special interest is that we are seeing some of the light directly and other parts of the light after it has been reflected off of dust…and due to the longer path, the reflected light from the same event is reaching us later than the direct light!

Bulletin of concerned scientists: wonder if the US should consider calling for a testing ban on “hypersonic” missiles (slower than the ICBMs but fast enough to react quickly). The article is worth reading if only to learn about the technology.

Job discrimination: an applicant changed his first name from Jose to Joe…and ended up getting call backs that he didn’t get earlier.

Life sciences After almost 30 years, scientists were able to place a type of sea mushroom (not quite a fungus, not quite a fish) into a place on the tree of life.

Elephants: we really shouldn’t hunt these creatures; they are too smart and can take pleasure in play:

Technology and vibrations: watch the consequences of an unbalanced load and subsequent vibrations:

September 4, 2014 Posted by | astronomy, evolution, racism, science, social/political | , , , | Leave a comment

Some of Richard Dawkins in public debate …

One of my man-crushes:

July 16, 2014 Posted by | evolution, religion, science | | Leave a comment

More information doesn’t change beliefs

Ok, so what do you “know”? Interestingly, if one is talking about a larger issue (say, climate change, evolution, or the effects of a given economic policy on the economy) knowing more about the basics (e. g. knowing science facts or being able to solve a text book science problem) doesn’t mean that one is more likely to reach a correct conclusion on a major issue, especially when:

1. One has a self interest in an issue (e. g. one benefits directly from somewhat higher inflation)
2. One has a self interest in a tribal identity (e. g. a good conservative rejects climate science or evolution, a good liberal might feel that they should have GMO hysteria or accept woo-woo).

Paul Krugman is pessimistic (what else is new? :-))

The truth is that in a society as unequal and polarized as ours has become, almost everything is political. Get used to it.

Brendan Nyhan says:

So what should we do? One implication of Mr. Kahan’s study and other research in this field is that we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues – for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican like former Representative Bob Inglis or an evangelical Christian like the climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe.

But we also need to reduce the incentives for elites to spread misinformation to their followers in the first place. Once people’s cultural and political views get tied up in their factual beliefs, it’s very difficult to undo regardless of the messaging that is used.

It may be possible for institutions to help people set aside their political identities and engage with science more dispassionately under certain circumstances, especially at the local level. Mr. Kahan points, for instance, to the relatively inclusive and constructive deliberations that were conducted among citizens in Southeast Florida about responding to climate change. However, this experience may be hard to replicate – on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, another threatened coastal area, the debate over projected sea level rises has already become highly polarized.

The deeper problem is that citizens participate in public life precisely because they believe the issues at stake relate to their values and ideals, especially when political parties and other identity-based groups get involved – an outcome that is inevitable on high-profile issues. Those groups can help to mobilize the public and represent their interests, but they also help to produce the factual divisions that are one of the most toxic byproducts of our polarized era. Unfortunately, knowing what scientists think is ultimately no substitute for actually believing it.

This is one of the reasons I make it a point to lampoon ridiculous anti-GMO hysteria and to ridicule this “natural is better” nonsense:

What this tells us is that elite opinions matter a lot in public discourse. The gap between liberals and non-liberals is not really there on this issue at the grassroots. That could change, as people of various ideologies tend to follow elite cues. This is why the strong counter-attack from within the Left elite is probably going to be effective, as it signals that being against GMO is not the “liberal position.”

I’ll continue to speak out against the anti-vaccine crackpots too; they are more dangerous than the anti-GMO fruitcakes.

July 12, 2014 Posted by | economics, evolution, science | , , | Leave a comment

Delusions and holding on to them

I’ll discuss two different types of delusions.

The first one: “If a segment of the population doesn’t agree with me or ridicules me, then I am persecuted.”

Seriously: conservatives genuinely believe that.

Hey, Mr. George Will: I have your “coveted status” right here.

Then there are ideas that go against one’s prior beliefs: MORE INFORMATION WILL, IN GENERAL, NOT CHANGE THE BELIEF. Paul Krugman explains:

On Sunday The Times published an article by the political scientist Brendan Nyhan about a troubling aspect of the current American scene — the stark partisan divide over issues that should be simply factual, like whether the planet is warming or evolution happened. It’s common to attribute such divisions to ignorance, but as Mr. Nyhan points out, the divide is actually worse among those who are seemingly better informed about the issues.

The problem, in other words, isn’t ignorance; it’s wishful thinking. Confronted with a conflict between evidence and what they want to believe for political and/or religious reasons, many people reject the evidence. And knowing more about the issues widens the divide, because the well informed have a clearer view of which evidence they need to reject to sustain their belief system.

The Krugman article I linked to talks about economic beliefs.

Jerry Coyne deals with the science aspect (e. g. evolution); he shows that acceptance of evolution is NOT as strongly correlated with scientific knowledge as one might think; one also has to correct for religious belief.

Though the first two examples are mainly aimed at conservatives, liberals are guilty of this as well; in the liberal case, think of woo-woos, anti-GMO crackpots and anti-vaccine types.

In the liberal case, the fallacy isn’t one of traditional religion but rather “natural is better”.

July 8, 2014 Posted by | economics, economy, evolution, religion, science, social/political, superstition | , , | Leave a comment

Saturday, June 7 science and politics (what else?)

Science: sexual selection in action:

Like many frogs, the male Mientien tree frog (Kurixalus idiootocus), a native of Taiwan, advertises his availability for breeding by emitting a mating call. The females listen to the calls, evaluate them, choose their preferred mating partner, and then it’s game on – froggy style.

The problem is that in a noisy forest, it’s sometimes hard to pick out a meaningful sound from all the racket. As a result, many frogs have learned to take advantage of features in their environment that can artificially boost their calls, perhaps making them sound louder or deeper-pitched. Tree-hole frogs, for example, use their tree holes as a sort of microphone, taking advantage of the resonance effects of the hollowed out chamber to project their calls over greater distances.

While frogs evolved to capitalize on things like tree holes, human-made structures are relatively new. Concrete walls, asphalt roads, telephone poles, and all the other trappings of human material culture have changed the acoustic environment in which animals now find themselves. Those animals have a choice: they can either adapt to their new sonic environment, or they can abandon their older methods for communication and find new ones.

It turns out that things like storm drains make their calls more audible; hence male frogs that use storm drains as a megaphone for their calls leave more offspring.

GMO: This is an imperfect article that at least attempts some balance. But surf there and read it for the comments; some scientists weigh in. There are GMO issues to be resolved, but the effects on human health are not among them.

Politics
President Obama on student debt:

Obama derangement syndrome: President Obama has honored D-day as much as recent presidents; here is a list of FACTS of what past presidents have done. The hard core wingnuts will just think that you are lying, but this might settle the mind of the neutral.

Of course, not all criticism of President Obama is racist; I’d even venture to say that most of it is NOT. But he does endure racist attacks from Republicans; that is undeniable. Of course, delusional conservatives will try to counter that LIBERALS are racist too: e. g. there are a couple of inarticulate quotes from the human gaffe machine (aka Vice President Biden), maybe a quote from a President Obama discussion (describing his grandmother, or talking about race relations in his book) and….wait for it….a quote from Louis Farrakhan!!!! (Farrakhan a liberal? I haven’t heard that one before. Yes, President Obama denounced him)

Gun nuts
Enjoy Bill Maher’s masterful snark attack on those doing the open carry “protests”.

June 7, 2014 Posted by | Barack Obama, evolution, political/social, politics, science, social/political | , , , | Leave a comment

Human evolution: past and present

Evidently genes are still evolving (of course) and doing so quite rapidly. And sometimes, the genes are taking on new functions:

Over long periods of evolutionary time, some copied genes change drastically — so drastically, in fact, that they take on entirely new tasks.

Consider hemoglobin, which stores oxygen in red blood cells for delivery throughout the body. Scientists have found that it belongs to a family of genes that do many different things with oxygen and recent studies suggest that it evolved from proteins that grabbed extra oxygen molecules inside cells before they could do harm.

Now about Neanderthals: they were a type of human but very different from us. There is a new book which interests me: How to Think Like a Neanderthal.
I am sure much of it is speculation based on current data. Much of what is said doesn’t surprise me: the Neanderthals were stronger than we are, had to take more physical risks (e. g. used thrusting spears instead of throwing spears), suffered more injuries and cared for each other.

As far as the Neanderthal/human hybrids: realistically, this was NOT the result of consensual sex. I am loath to use the term “rape” as I see rape is a human on human crime, where “human” stands for “homo sapiens”.

April 29, 2014 Posted by | evolution, science | | Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 658 other followers