Scientifica Phenomena

Book Review: Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science

2012-01-25T10:00:00.000-06:00

Second Edition Published by
Dover Publications

If you have an interest in telling reality from nonsense, I have found history to be one of the most insightful guides. UFOs, Scientology, and end of the world theories did not show up yesterday. Each of these has a long chronicle of claims and critics. Understanding that history is a window into the world of frauds, cranks, and the misinformed.

Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science was written by Martin Gardner in 1952, with the second edition coming out in 1957. I have heard this book referred to as one of the first modern skeptical books. The book covers a wide rage of topics each in about 10 pages. As I read, I was surprised at how many of these ideas are still around today, only repackaged for a modern audience.

Personally, the most informative and frankly fun cases to read about were the UFOs. You have to keep in mind this book was written before the launch of Sputnik, so our understanding of the universe was very different. This was a time when most UFO were believed not to have come from other stars or galaxies but from Mars or Venus. The dropping of the first atomic weapons was still fresh in the public consciousness as well. This led a whole slew of explanations for why the aliens were visiting the Earth. Some were fairly straightforward, like the idea that the aliens wanted us not to destroy ourselves. Other explanations were outright bizarre, like the idea that beings the size of bees made from precious gems were piloting these UFOs because the atomic blasts were somehow disrupting the sun and threatening their home on Mars.

It is fun to look at these old ideas and see how ridiculous they are. But they also give us a very important cautionary tale. After all, Martin Gardner was not writing on these ideas simply to make fun of them. He wrote on these topics because these are things people believed. 60 years later, you could write basically the same book on a new set of weird beliefs that have cropped up. We need to be careful on what grounds we accept what we are told and carry on this legacy of informing those around us.

Getting Students Invested

2012-01-20T09:30:00.000-06:00

One of the hardest parts of teaching, especially in a K-12 classroom, is getting your students engaged. This is a huge issue because the difference between having a student engaged and having one just not care can be the difference between them asking thought-provoking questions or having them disrupting the rest of the class. In training, I was told to get students engaged you need to get them invested in their education. That is great advice but at the same time it can be really hard to implement. There are only so many ways to tell a student that their education is important before they start blocking you out. That is why I got really excited by a new paper published in Sage Open that came up with a new way to get students engaged: contracts.

I have seen teachers use contracts in the classroom before, but not like this. The basic idea is you show students the requirements for each letter grade at the start of the semester. Each assignment is pass fail and can be repeated a fixed number of times. So for example to get an A you needed to get above 80% on 4 exams, do 3 of 4 written assignments, and 3 of 4 activities. To get a B in the class you would need to get above 80% on 4 exams, do 2 of the 4 written assignments, and 3 of the 4 activities. The student gets complete control over what activities and written assignments to do but for whatever assignments they chose they need to show a very strong understanding of the material. The idea is to get students to set their own goal at the start of the semester and then focus on mastering the material throughout the semester, not just remembering a percentage of it.

I really like this idea for several reasons. Giving students more control makes them more responsible for their own learning. That alone can be really motivating for many students. I also like the idea of letting students retry assignments because it makes them look at their previous work critically and look for ways to improve on it. Lastly, I think it is really good for students to learn to set goals early with a clear idea of what they will need to do to achieve that goal.

As nice as it is that this kind of student contract caters to my philosophical notions about how we should teach students, the real question is, does it work? The answer appears to be a tentative yes. To test it researchers at Western Illinois University compared two freshman psychology classes. The teacher and content was the same in both courses but one is a traditional grading system and the other used this contract grading system. To quote the press release...

...at the end of the semester, the group of students who were graded contractually were three times more likely to earn an A grade, one third as likely to fail or withdraw from the course, perceived a higher degree of control over their grade, and consistently rated their own effort, their instructor, and the course overall more favorably.

It is important to note that is was a small study and it was done on the college level so it is hard to say how well it would apply to a K-12 environment. We also can't rule out effects like the teacher being biased towards the contract grading system or the result being a statistical fluke. Still I think it is a really interesting idea. One that deserves more studies at more educational levels.

The full paper is titled "Use of Contract Grading to Improve Grades Among College Freshmen in Introductory Psychology" by Dana F. Lindemann and Colin R. Harbke and can be found at http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/12/22/2158244011434103

Dynamic Earth: Happy Birthday, Baby Island!

2012-01-18T20:07:00.000-06:00

On Thursday, the first clear pictures of a new land mass were revealed. And here they are:

From Universe Today

This new deserted island is part of Zubair Island chain in the Red Sea. A large volcanic eruption in December pushed this new piece of land above the water's surface, and this is the first clear shot, free of clouds and volcanic ash plumes, of the island. Like most island chains, this one is a series of shield volcanoes, which form as the continental plate moves over a "hot spot" in the upper mantle. This new volcanic island, therefore, is most likely nowhere near done growing, however, so it will be a while before anyone visits this place. It's an awesome reminder, however, of how the surface of our planet continues to grow.

Scientific Unknowns: What is Life Redux

2012-01-17T09:00:00.000-06:00

Image Credit: JFantasy via Wikimedia Commons

Almost three years ago now, I wrote a post about the difficulty of defining life. Now this has come back into the news and I thought I would add my two cents.

This all started when Edward Trifonov, a biologist at the University of Haifa Isreal, proposed a three word definition of life. To quote from the article by Carl Zimmer on Txchnologist...

Trifanov analyzed the linguistic structure of 150 definitions of life, grouping similar words into categories. He found that he could sum up what they all have in common in three words. Life, Trifonov declares, is simply self-reproduction with variations.

In his article, Zimmer does acknowledge that there is a considerable amount of criticism but he mostly focuses on what this definition might be missing, metabolism, information and so on. I was interested, though, when I read a critical piece by Sean Carroll asking if reproduction should even be a part of our definition. He says...

...the idea of reproduction looms large in many people’s definitions of life. But I don’t think it really belongs. If you built an organism from scratch, that was as complicated and organic and lifelike as any living thing currently walking this Earth, except that it had no reproductive capacity, it would be silly to exclude it from “life” just because it was non-reproducing. Even worse, I realized that I myself wouldn’t even qualify as alive under Trifonov’s definition, since I don’t have kids and don’t plan on having any.

3 Legged dog on the right
Photo Credit: Jon Hurd via Wikimedia Commons

It is a really interesting question. We could define dogs in part as having four legs, but does that mean if a dog loses one leg it is no longer a dog? If we created a cell in the lab that is identical to a natural cell in every way except it can't reproduce is it alive? To give another example, I think it is easy to imagine a robot that can copy itself but that we would still not want to call alive. My personal thought, is that reproduction is a necessary component for any type of life that will survive for long stretches of time. That doesn't mean reproduction is what makes something alive.

So what is life? I certainly don't have an answer. Right now we have a sample size of one*. Until we find life somewhere else in the universe, I wouldn't expect any real agreement on this deceptively simple question.

*After all, every living thing we have found on the Earth shares a common ancestor.

Pardon Our Construction

2012-01-15T16:47:00.000-06:00

Due to some issues with changing links and image hosting, we'd decided to redesign Scientifica. All through this weekend, we will be changing templates and making adjustments, so we apologize if you come on while the site is a mess. These changed should be complete by Monday the 16th, at which time we hope you'll explore the new layout. If you find anything broken or that looks off, or have any other comments or suggestions, send us an email through our Contact form, or in the comments below.

Thanks!

Welcome to the Future

2012-01-07T13:07:00.001-06:00

From the SGU and Skeptical Robot

According to some, this year, 2012, is going to be the end of the world. For me, however, this year feels, once again, like a reminder that we live in the future. I am writing this post not on a desktop or laptop computer. Instead, I am on a device sold as a phone, but bearing more resemblance to a Star Trek type pocket communicator, with options to access an instantaneous world-wide network of information. I can communicate several collections of individuals with whom I can share photographs, pages of information and data, and even talk to in a nearly face-to-face manner. It can give me directions to anywhere I want from where ever I am at a given point in time. I can find almost any book I want to read at any time. It allows me to never miss a perfect photo again. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it also makes food and does my laundry, if you install the correct app. And this smartphone edition came out several years ago. The new ones, and their sister technology the tablets, seem even more like something out of a science fiction book.

And more exciting technology than this is coming out all the time. Last year, Google put driverless cars on the road. The first prototype electric airplane were funded through the NASA Green Flight Challenge. No-focus camera technology was developed. And those are just a few of the innovations that may come into the public field as early as this year, and each of them could revolutionary to how we live our daily lives.

Technology, and the science that allows us to develop it, can be amazing. For all that it can be annoying at times, it can be valuable to step back and realize just how fantastic the items we take for granted really are. We live in a world where science fiction is coming true. No, we don't have flying cars or mammoths on jetpacks, yet, but the things our smartphones, our tablets, our computers, our cars, our GPSs, our televisions, and more, allow us to travel, communicate, and do work in ways I wouldn't have imagined even as a kid just over a decade ago. Welcome to the future, and get ready to see what we discover in 2012, and beyond.

Book Review: Poor Economics

2011-12-14T09:00:00.000-06:00

This is our first book review here at Scientifica, but I think it is long overdue. I'm not sure how often we will be able to do these but it something that I have wanted to do for some time now. Hopefully you will find some books that interest you and if you have any recommendations, please put them in the comments.

Poor Economics is not one of your typical skeptical book. It doesn't talk about ghosts or people who think the Earth is hollow. Instead, it dives into poverty and the solutions that people offer to the poor. As someone who is a fan of critical thinking and has done a fair about of service work, this book was the best blend of the two I have ever seen.

Humanitarian efforts are almost always run by people who really want to make a difference in peoples lives. Unfortunately, sometimes people get so caught up in trying to help that they never ask if what they are doing is working. It is easy to just go off anecdotes to justify your work and to some degree that is OK to do. However when it comes to putting in place programs that are really going to try to make an impact on social problems and increase peoples standard of living we should demand evidence. These programs are not free and like any consumer we should want the most bang of our buck.

Poor Economics does a really impressive job of reviewing the mixed and often limited data around poverty. Do people use a bug net that was given to them for free? Is a lack of food what keeps people poor? Are the poor one loan away form being thriving business owners? These are hard questions that have complex answers. Even if you don't read the book I strongly recommend you peruse their website. There is a lot of good data there as well a some resources for teaching about poverty.

The Bottom Line: This book is excellent. It doesn't matter if you know nothing about poverty or if you are engrossed in these issues. This book tries gives the reader understanding of why the poor make the choices they do and what can be done to help improve their lives.

As an aside, it is the end of the year so if you are looking for good charities I recommend you look at GiveWell.org and Foundation Beyond Belief. Give Well reviews charities that address lots of difference social issues. Like the authors of Poor Economics, they review the evidence for a charities effectiveness and rank them accordingly. Foundation Beyond Belief organizes secularists to donate to charities on a variety of issues. If you are able, please give back to humanity this holiday season.

Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Belong in a Science Class

2011-12-09T08:00:00.000-06:00

I try to stay away from politics for the most part on this blog, but when it threatens science education I can't stay silent. For readers in other countries, the U.S. is currently in the middle of the Republican party (GOP) primary elections to see who will run against current President Obama in 2012. Last Thursday, the Huffington post reported on GOP candidate Michele Bachmann's stance towards evolution and intelligent design. In the video linked to by the article she equates not teaching intelligent design with "censorship on the part of government". Michele Bachmann is by no means the only GOP candidate that supports the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools.

This idea that our students need to learn both intelligent design and evolution in their science class is wrong for several reasons. The purpose of a science class, especially in a K-12 school, is to give students an understanding of the best science we have and (ideally) an idea of how science works. By itself, that is a ton of content. I have yet to meet a science teacher who actually thinks they have enough class time to fully teach all the material in their curriculum. To give you a feel for how much content there is: when I was working in a middle school in Chicago, we were given the school year to teach our sixth graders all of Earth sciences. That may sound like a ton of time but consider that Earth sciences includes: the motion of the planets, the seasons, the lunar phases, the different types of rocks, basic tectonics, earthquakes, how pressure systems impact weather, reading weather maps, what is climate, and global climate change. All this while trying to teach them how science works and give them some experience using lab materials. So as it stands many teachers don't have time to give students a good understands of the most fundamental topics. There simply isn't time for controversial or fringe science.

This brings me nicely to my second point. Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in public schools because it's not science. It makes no testable claims that could ever falsify it. I am also not aware of any scientist who has made a discovery that stemmed from their belief in intelligent design. Any paradigm which makes no testable predictions and does nothing to further our understanding of the universe really can't be called science in any meaning full way. If it's not science, then clearly it shouldn't be in taught in a science class.

If intelligent design isn't science then, what is it? Religion. The first amendment of the United States says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is in place to protect government from religion, and religion from government. So if intelligent design is religion, it cannot be taught in public schools without violation of the constitution. In 2005, this very issue came up in Dover, Pennsylvania. The judge John E Jones III concluded the following in the official decision "We have concluded that... ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." You have a right to teach religion, just do it in church.

I have no problem with intelligent design being a part of a comparative religions course. I also think it would be really cool if maybe some larger high schools were able to offer a course on evolution that discussed the specific claims made by intelligent design proponents. Students will make up their own mind on all issues and I don't think anyone wants to stop them from doing that. What I want is for them to understand what's science, what's not, and what the difference is. That way, they will be making up their mind in an informed way. Along the same lines, how important this issue is to how you vote is up to you. I certainly am not trying to say this is the only reason to support or distance yourself from a candidate. I just find it sad when the people who are asking us to let them run this country do not understand the facts behind such a widespread issue.

If you are now sightly depressed, want to learn more, or both I highly highly recommend this clip of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson from his interview with Sam Ogden of Skephick.

What is Science? - Skewed Views

2011-12-07T08:00:00.000-06:00

"Evolution is just a theory."

As a paleontology student, I hear that argument a lot. There seems to be a common misunderstanding of the language of science. This video delves into the problems of arguing against science using emotion or by appealing to incomprehension.

If you found this interesting, we have written a whole series on what science is:

The Method - Extraordinary Claims - Natural Explanations - Anecdotal Evidence - Unfalsifiable Hypothesis - Burden of Proof - Self-Correction - Occam's Razor - Using Unknowns to Prove a Point

Hat tip to Steven G via Fraser Cain on Google+

Practical Science: Exercising to Sleep

2011-12-05T08:00:00.000-06:00

NASA astronaut Steve Lindsey, commander of STS-133,
exercising on the International Space Station
Photo credit NASA via Wikimedia Commons

I write a lot about science that overturns everyday notions. More often, though, I find science confirms what most anyone on the street could tell you. Even if those stories don't make as catchy headlines, they can still be really important. Case and point, a new study to be published in the December issue of the journal Mental Health and Physical Activity has found that people who do moderate to vigorous exercise for at least 150 minutes a week sleep better and feel less drowsy during the day. Not just a little more sleep either: a full 65% increase in reported sleep quality.

I have found this to be true in my own life as well. The nights I don't sleep well are when I am trapped inside all day writing a paper or watching videos on the Internet. My uncle is a rancher in Wyoming and says he has never has trouble sleeping. It is really nice to see a study like this to confirm my own anecdotal experience.

So, if you do have trouble getting through the night, try to find a half hour each day to ride a bike, run, swim, hike, lift, climb, whatever works for you.

Looking for Other Worlds

2011-12-01T08:00:00.000-06:00

The search for exoplanets has gone from being an unlikely dream 20 years ago to being a booming area of research in astronomy and planetary science. The first true exoplanet discovery, according to NASA, was in 1994. Since then, 687 have been discovered, and more are being found all the time. This video from Cosmic Journeys takes you through some of the highlights of exoplanet discovery, particularly the search for Earth-like planets.

Hat tip to Ciro Villa on Google+

Child Scientists

2011-11-23T11:38:00.001-06:00

For some, an interest in science shows up in college, or later. For others, it starts young. I was one of those very young science kids: if you mispronounced a dinosaur name around me, I would come right up to you and correct you. To this day, I still cringe whenever someone mispronounces Dienonychus* or Diplodocus**. As I've grown older, I've met lots of other kids who are excited about paleontology, like these two:

I love encouraging this type of interest in science in general, and paleontology in particular. Sometimes, though, I meet a kid who just completely blows me away with how passionate and excited they are. Thanks to the Internet, I've recently discovered several of these amazing kids. All of them are 7 or 8 years old, and how passionate and enthusiastic they already are about science blows me away.

The first is Aaron, an 8 year old time traveler who, with his trusty computer pal INO, wanders through prehistory in search of his favorite dinosaurs and other creatures. He documents his travels in short podcasts, most of which focus on a particular dinosaur or other prehistoric animal. He takes time to share facts about each dinosaur as he tracks it, and to answer questions about paleontology, specific dinosaurs, and his own interests, sent in by other kids. His podcast story is on its second season now, traveling through the Cenozoic instead of the Mesozoic. You can find him at Aaron's World.

Another is a vlogger, rather than a podcaster. Riley the Paleontologist is 7 years old, from Alabama. Much of the Southern U.S. could learn from him; he's clearly got the concept of "science" all figured out. He brings a miniature version of every dinosaur he discussed to his show, and discusses the basic facts paleontologists have found about each dinosaur. You can watch his first episode below, and find him on Youtube.

And the third "paleokid" I've discovered is Art, of Life Before the Dinosaurs. He is a blogger, and unusual in that, unlike many kids who love paleontology, his obsession isn't dinosaurs. Instead, he loves Paleozoic invertebrates, the weirder the better. This happens to be my favorite time period as well, and I learn something new with every one of Art's posts... which, considering this is what I'm studying in college right now, is quite impressive.

It's inspiring to find kids like these, taking initiative and, with their parents' help, sharing their love of science with the world. It gives me hope for the future of science. And these are just a couple of the paleokids. I am always finding other children and teens who, against the cultural norm, love science and spread that love to anyone willing to listen. If you know of any others, please send them my way!

Modified from my post at Teen Skepchick

Just in case you weren't sure how they were to be pronounced...
*die-NON-o-kus, not di-no-NI-kus
** dip-LOD-o-kus, not dip-lo-DOUGH-kus

New Comment Policy

2011-11-11T09:00:00.000-06:00

We have had an increase in the comments we are getting. We are really excited by this and it made us realize we needed a clear comment policy. Hopefully it is mostly common sense, but you may want to take a look, here.

Happy Commenting.

Happy Sagan Day!

2011-11-09T09:35:00.001-06:00

Carl Sagan was hugely influential in getting me interested in science and more specifically, planetary studies. His book "A Demon Haunted World" is still probably the best all around skeptical book I have read. If you haven't read it already, you really should read it. I think the book is a great introduction to critical thinking because he is able to give you the tools to think, without beating you over the head with them. There are so many wonderful quotes I could pick out of this book but here is one that I think gets to the heart of skepticism and isn't often cited.

As I've tried to stress, at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. The collective enterprise of creative thinking and skeptical thinking, working together, keeps the field on track.

Have a great day and take some time today to look for that wonder in the world Carl was so magnificent at sharing.

Why Pluto Should Not be a Planet

2011-11-03T07:46:00.000-05:00

Credit: NASA/ESA/SWRI

It was 2006 when the International Astronomical Union declared that Pluto was no longer going to be considered a planet. Ironically, this was probably one of the best followed scientific controversies of my lifetime. Even now, my chemistry teacher proclaims in class that Pluto is a planet. I just want to set the record straight on this once and for all. Pluto is not a planet and it should stay that way.

The word planet means "wanders" in ancient Greek. If you are a careful observer of the sky, there are 7 objects that "wander" against the background stars. These first 7 "planets" were Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Moon, and the Sun. As time went on, we realized that the Sun is really a complete different type of object than the others. The Moon is also unique on that list because it does not directly orbit the Sun, so we put it in a different class of objects. Now, let's look at the rest of the list. Before I go any further, go look at a image of the solar system to scale. There is a good image done by the team at Space.com below the break.

So have you looked at it? Good, because then you realize that really Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, Saturn (and the later discovered Uranus and Neptune) are really 2 different types of objects. So, we break these up into the inner rocky planets and the outer gaseous planets. Then there are only a few other groups of objects. You have the moons of the solar system, some of which are bigger than Mercury. There is the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. I think to most people it is clear why even the largest asteroid, Ceres, is not a planet. Like the other asteroids, Ceres has a different composition than rocky planets and its orbit crosses with the thousands of other objects that occupy that part of the solar system.

So what about Pluto? Pluto is smaller than our moon, and like Ceres, it shares an orbit. Pluto resides in what is known as the Kuiper belt. Think of the Kuiper belt as like the asteroid belt, only with icy objects instead of rocky ones and a lot farther from the sun. Pluto may not even be the largest object in the Kuiper belt. Eris was discovered in 2005 and has a diameter of 2326 kilometers known to an accuracy of 12 kilometers. Pluto is somewhere between 2300 and 2400 kilometers. Pluto's size is harder to determine because sublimating ices on its surface can give it a little temporary atmosphere. So when it comes down to it, Pluto is a different type of object than the other planets. It is not a rocky world close to the sun and its not a massive ball of gas. Pluto is something else, a icy world that is interesting in its own right, but not to be confused with anything else.

Source: SPACE.com: All about our solar system, outer space and exploration

On "Organic" and "GM" Food

2011-10-16T11:37:00.002-05:00

While sitting in the dining hall the other day, several other students at my table were discussing their nutritional preferences. One of the guys, in particular, was adamant about eating organic food, and was disgusted by the poor nutritional value and supposedly cheap quality of the dining hall food. Now, I am not going to claim my dining hall has the most amazing food ever, because it doesn't, but it's far from the worst I've had. And so long as you vary what you eat and try to keep a balanced diet, it's not difficult to stay healthy and well-fed without supplementing the meal plan. But, at least in this context, that was not the point. This student was truly upset by the fact that the food was probably "GM" and definitely not "organic."

According to the USDA, foods labeled "organic" must meet a set of criteria, which basically boil down to not using synthetic products, such as fertilizers or pesticides, as well as attempting to farm sustainably and maintain the biodiversity of the farmland. On the whole, I don't feel this is a bad idea. Sustainable, environmentally friendly farming practices are just smart: they allow the land to continue to be fertile and cause minimal disruption to the native ecosystem. The idea that no man-made products can be used is not a bad idea... I mostly see it as a silly one. All synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and other products used in agriculture are regulated by the EPA and the FDA, for environmental and human safety. Even in industrial farming, it is becoming common practice to use man-made products as a last resort, both to protect the health of the farm and the consumer, but also to help the products to retain their potency. Like antibiotics, if pesticides are overused, the target creatures will become immune over time.

So, overall, organic food is not something I have a problem with as a whole. There are a few things that rub me the wrong way, though, which I've discussed in the past. For instance, the term "organic" is a bit of a misnomer; in the chemical sense, basically everything we eat, with the exception of salt, is organic. Also, the scientific studies suggest that there's really no nutritional or health benefit of "organic" food over "non-organic" food. If you think it tastes significantly better, and don't mind the higher price, then go for it. But the hype about organic food seems misplaced.

The fear of genetically modified food, however, is even more peculiar. Humans have been genetically modifying food ever since we settled down into agricultural societies. That's how we turned wild maize into the corn, wild peafowl into chickens, wild bananas into something easily edible. The only difference is that, at that point, we used artificial selection. Farmers would take two plants or animals that had characteristics they liked- say, larger ears of corn - and cross-breed them. In as few at 10 generations, the whole crop could have this characteristic. And, they could do this well before Darwin or Mendel came along to explain how it worked. However, understanding genetics, heredity, and evolution allowed farmers to more successfully manipulate their crops. Farms also started, at least with plants, using clones. If you take a clipping of a plant and replant it, it will often grow into a new individual, with the same genetics as the parent plant. You can do this over and over again, and don't have to get a new batch of seeds, with variable genetics and thus variable characteristics. A farmer knows every single plant in his field will have the same characteristics, which allow it to sell well.

The only thing different about "GM" crops, then, is that instead of repeating this process by trial and error, we can now go into the genes themselves and make tiny changes that result in even more precise output. Instead of it taking ten generations to made the corn kernels sweeter, for instance, it will take one. And, instead of the added sweetness resulting in fewer ears per plant, you can maintain the same number or even add a few more. It's a blessing in disguise. And, as with non-organic food, there's no scientific evidence that genetically modified foods are more harmful than the alternatives (which are also genetically modified, just in a more "natural" way). And, as before, they're highly regulated to make sure they do not harm humans or the environment.

Going back to the lunchroom conversation, I just can't see any scientific support for my classmate's claim that non-organic, genetically modified food is less good for you. If, for reasons of personal preference or ideology, he prefers to eat the "natural" alternatives, fine. There's no harm in them. But at the same time, it's unreasonable to hold the whole world to that standard. Because of agricultural innovations such as synthetic products and genetic modification, we are able to produce more than enough food to feed the rapidly growing human population (the distribution of that food is still an issue, but that's a topic for another day). The hype and fear-mongering is simply misplaced or untrue.

This post was written for Blog Action Day 2011.

Don't Trust Me

2011-10-13T09:00:00.000-05:00

When was the last time you read a professional UFO website? What about a creationism or intelligent design website? If you're reading this blog, it probably means you agree with most of what we write about. If that's not true, good for you. There is nothing wrong with reading articles you agree with; in fact, you should do so. This is how we learn about the topics we are interested in. I think there is a problem, though, when that becomes all we read.

A few years ago I was having a friendly debate with a creationist who was a good friend of mine. As we got deeper and deeper into the various topics (dating rocks, mechanisms of selection, etc.) we began to hit walls at the edge of our respective knowledge. This alone is not a problem and I have found to be quite common in verbal debates. Something else I think we both realized though was the we were not really very familiar with each others arguments. That debate ended in what was the best conclusion to a debate I have ever had, we both recommended each other books. I recommended Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller and he pointed me towards The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Even now, I have that book on my bookshelf and am proud to own it. So, why am I proud to own a book that I disagree with more often than not?

The skeptical movement prides itself on making decisions based on evidence. We promote evidence, rationality, and I think above all, an interest in understanding reality. The beautiful thing about reality is that it's there. It doesn't matter how many people believe something or hear of an idea, reality will still be doing its thing. When basically everyone on the planet thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System, that did not make it true. If we really want to understand this wonderfully complex and confusing universe we live in, learning about ideas you disagree with will only bring you closer to that goal. Just make sure you take all new ideas with a healthy dose of skepticism. Doubt, question, and ask what ideas are supported by the evidence.

There is another advantage to understanding the "other side" that I think is equally important. If you understand the reason someone else came to their conclusions you are going to be able to have much more productive debates. No one likes debating a straw man or characterization of their position, skeptic or not. If you understand what they are saying first, you are much more likely to change minds. Also, I think a lot of skeptics would be surprised at how much they have in common with people who may hold irrational beliefs. I have found that often the difference between skeptic and believer is a tiny difference in how they understand evidence or statistics. Again understanding this can lead to a much more enjoyable discussion for both parities even if you don't walk away in perfect agreement. So I challenge you all. Go read a book, a blog, or listen to a podcast that challenges you views. Try to come away from it more enlightened than when you went in.

Beauty and Science: The Sagan and Feynman Series

2011-10-03T07:24:00.000-05:00

There can be something almost magical about the universe as revealed by science. Few human beings in recent time have expressed this as well as Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman. I stumbled upon this video series the other day and was blown away. Enjoy.

Happy Banned Books Week!

2011-09-29T17:03:00.001-05:00

Normally, I write about science and skepticism here, but I am a self-professed bibliophile as well. One cause that's near-and-dear to my heart, therefore, is Banned Books Week. Many of the most contested books are science fiction, fantasy, or historical fiction; however, texts like Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species often also appear on lists of banned books. Plus, part of a complete education is reading anything one can get their hands on. So, in honor of that and the joy of reading... have a wonderful banned books week!

Cross-posted from Teen Skepchick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here in the U.S.A, the last week of September is always Banned Books Week. This campaign, started 13 years ago by the American Library Association, is designed to raise awareness about censorship and encourage everyone, particularly kids, to expand their horizons and read books that others find questionable enough to try and ban. It's a celebration of the right to read.

Every year, hundreds of books are challenged by school boards, religious groups, teachers, and particularly parents, often with the best intentions. These adults want to "protect" children from sexually explicit scenes, profane language, depictions of violence, descriptions of drugs, homosexuality, and things generally "unsuited to age group".

Turns out, though, that the most challenged books aren't always the ones you'd expect. Take And Tango Makes Three, for instance, the first book I ever heard of being banned. It's a children's picture book, about two penguins that successfully hatch and raise an orphaned egg. It's a sweet, heart-warming story. Who could possibly have a problem with it? Well, here's the twist: the parents in And Tango Makes Three are both male. And because of that, it has been the most challenged book for four out of the past five years, topped only by the ttyl series by Lauren Myracle in 2009.

Many of my all-time favorite books have been in the top 10 lists of banned and contested books from the last decade as well. For instance: the entire Harry Potter series; His Dark Materials trilogy, by Phillip Pullman; The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky; Bridge to Terabithia, by Katherine Paterson; My Sister's Keeper, by Jodi Picoult; The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain; and Julie of the Wolves, by Jean Craighead George. There's several others that I've read as well. Nearly all of them are books I'd recommend, or that had a big impact on me growing up.

Banned Books Week 2011 runs until October 1st, so there's still time to start a new (or an old favorite) story from the banned books list. Go out and exercise your right to read, and feel free to tell us about your favorite banned book.

All images credit the American Library Association

Summer Intro to Paleo: Preparation and Curation

2011-09-26T08:30:00.000-05:00

Here's the third video in my summer introduction to paleontology course. This time, we look at how to do field work. If you haven't seen them, you can watch previous installments.

For Further Information:
http://www.dmns.org/main/minisites/fossil/vertprep.html
http://preparation.paleo.amnh.org/45/tools-equipment

Leave any questions or suggestions in the comments below!

Particles Travelling Faster than the Speed of Light: Not So Fast

2011-09-23T07:00:00.000-05:00

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

The Internet is a-buzz as scientists from CERN research facilities in Gran Sasso National Laboratory, Italy are saying they have been observing neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. Neutrinos are low mass particles that can literally pass through light years of lead without interacting. These scientists are claiming that the particles arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than they should have at the speed of light. That may not sound like much, but the scientists running the project say their measurements are accurate to within 10 nanoseconds. So, if true what would this mean?

The speed of light as a cosmic speed limit is fundamental to Einstein's theory of relativity. Relativity is one of the most successful theories in all of physics. Undermining the speed of light as a cosmic speed limit undermines the foundation of much of relativity. I'm not going to go into all the detials here but if you want a better understanding I recommend Why does E=mc²? (And Why Should We Care?) by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.

For me, it comes down to the David Hume quote above. As far as physics are concerned, this is a miracle. Could it be true, but before we accept it the evidence should be overwhelming. Right now we have a very interesting result. Also, I have to say these scientists are doing awesome work. This is not some crank on YouTube saying he proved Einstein wrong. I am really interested to see what happens as labs around the world try and replicate this effect. If the result is due to some error, we still learn something new; if not, physicists are going to have some serious work to do.

Ghost Hunting: How Not to Do It

2011-09-22T07:07:00.000-05:00

In science, we look for multiple independent corroborating lines of evidence to prove any phenomena. We also want that evidence to of the highest quality we can get. Take evolution, for example. We have genetic analysis, morphological similarities, the fossil record, and biogeography (the distribution of living things across the globe) all pointing towards this one unifying idea. When it comes to ghost hunting, however these ideas on evidence seem to go out the window. Case in point is the Paranormal News article "Do It Yourself Ghost Hunting Part 1: Getting Started."

The first recommendation they have for finding ghosts is to get yourself a camera. The article says "The most important item would be a standard digital camera. Now, you don’t need to go all out and buy an expensive camera like a Canon PowerShot, most pictures that have evidence are from cameras that you can buy at any department store for a relatively cheap price." This statement should set off alarm bells galore. Why would you want to take a lower quality evidence? Of course, the author is correct to say that most ghost photos are from cheaper cameras. This is because most (if not all) ghost photos are due to flaws in the camera or mistakes by the photographer.

Next, they recommend you get an audio recorder. I have no problem with this suggestion as it stands, or even that maybe ghosts might somehow communicate to us by this means. To me, this is no weirder than ghosts existing the first place, but for both assertions we need evidence. Here is where we have an issue. If you record and listen to hours of white noise, it would be almost miraculous if your brain was not able to find something in that randomness that sounds like a human voice. We are wired to find patterns. So what might you do to separate out the noise?

Get more data!

For a moment as I read I thought this might be what the author was suggesting next. He says to bring a friend with you to not only make it more fun but also to build your credibility. This is a great suggestion. After all, if you could record the same voice at the same time on two different devices that is a much more interesting result. Imagine a ghost photographed from two different angeles at the same time. They may be on to something here. Oh wait...

There’s been some cases where we’ll have two audio recorders going on at once and they’ll catch two completely different results or one will catch something and another, running right next to it, will catch nothing at all. Cameras are the same way. When we were doing the investigation in Bethlehem, New Hampshire where Nicole caught the picture of the blue mist behind Nancy on the stairs (Photo on my website), I was taking photos as well, but where she caught something, I caught nothing on my camera.

What? I always understood that if you have two data points that contradict each other, that is a negative result. Taking a picture of the same spot with two cameras at the same time acts as a kind of control. If something is in one photo but not the other that screams of photographic error.

So if you want to go out on a ghost hunt, do it, but do it right. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has a great article on this by renowned ghost hunter Joe Nickell that says...

The scientific approach to hauntings does not begin with the unproven, seemingly contradictory notion that entities are at once nonmaterial and quasi physical. Rather, in scientific inquiry one seeks to gather, study, and follow the evidence, only positing a supernatural or paranormal cause when all natural explanations have been decisively eliminated. Investigation seeks neither to foster nor debunk mysteries but instead to solve them.

There are a lot of ways we can be fooled and we can fool ourselves but there are also still a lot of mysteries out there to solve. So get out there, have fun, and be skeptical.

Using Gaming for Good

2011-09-20T12:48:00.000-05:00

Video games have become one of the go-to activities to kill time and fight boredom in our digital age. They come in all flavors and varieties; some prefer first person shooters, while others (myself included) would rather play exploratory RPGs. There are concerns and research on the effects of those games, but that's a story for a different day. Instead, let's focus on the purpose of video games. Most are just games, with no purpose outside of entertainment. But a few help progress science, such as one that modeled an HIV enzyme in just three weeks, where the best computer models failed.

...[A] microscope gives only a flat image of what to the outsider looks like a plate of one-dimensional scrunched-up spaghetti. Pharmacologists, though, need a 3-D picture that "unfolds" the molecule and rotates it in order to reveal potential targets for drugs.

This is where Foldit comes in.

Developed in 2008 by the University of Washington, it is a fun-for-purpose video game in which gamers, divided into competing groups, compete to unfold chains of amino acids -- the building blocks of proteins -- using a set of online tools

....

Cracking the enzyme "provides new insights for the design of antiretroviral drugs," says the study, referring to the lifeline medication against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

It is believed to be the first time that gamers have resolved a long-standing scientific problem.

This to be awesome, in my opinion. I've played with Fold.It a little bit, but not enough to really give a review of the game. But the fact that it is being used to do this sort of research is fantastic, and I look forward to seeing what other discoveries can be made with it, as well as what applications those discoveries may have in the medical field.

-----
Fold.It is not the only online game that helps science, either. Back in 2009, we wrote about the Green Pea galaxies discovered using Galaxy Zoo. Since then, Zooniverse has expanded to include 10 different projects, mostly astronomy-oriented (although there's a new one called Ancient Lives which is decoding ancient papyrus, if archaeology is more your thing).

To my knowledge, these are the only two sites of their kind around at this point. However, they're far from the only venues for citizen science; we have a larger list on our Participate in Science page. Also, if you know of any other online games for science of this sort, we'd love to hear about them!

What Not to Buy: Critical Thinking Applied

2011-09-05T10:19:00.000-05:00

Time Moneyland has put together a great list of "12 Things you should stop buying now." This is a great application of critical thinking and has something for everyone. The list covers everything from new college textbooks to super high SPF sunscreen. One of the things I also really like about the way this is put together is that it includes the exceptions to the rule. For example, they rightly point out that some people with really fair skin may need very high SPF sunscreen, however the difference between SPF 30, and SPF 50 is much less then most people think. My personal favorite, though, was probably number 1.

Homeopathy

The pitch: Fight back against the aches, chills and other misery-inducing symptoms of the flu with herbs or vitamin supplements.

The truth: We’ll let the CDC handle this one. From the agency’s website: “There is no scientific evidence that any herbal, homeopathic or other folk remedies have any benefit against influenza.”

The exception: Chicken soup, especially if it’s homemade. No, it won’t cure anything, but if it makes you feel a little less crummy, slurp away.

If you are unfamiliar with homeopathy, it consists of diluting a substance until none of the substance remains and then calling it a cure. Nonsense is nonsense, no exceptions. And really who can argue with some nice chicken noodle soup when you're sick?

UFOs and the 2%

2011-08-25T08:00:00.000-05:00

Being an amateur astronomer, UFOs are close to my heart. I have been asked by countless people what I think of UFOs. On the Internet, it is not hard to find claims that UFOs are evidence of a hostile alien invasion, benevolent beings here to save us from ourselves, or that there are multiple species all here competing with each other for our loyalty. It is clear people are truly seeing strange things in the sky and others report first hand encounters. So the question is 'what should believe?'

There is no denying that people see strange objects in the night sky on a regular basis. Someone recently told me a story of a object he had seen with a group of people that reportedly would move in one direction, stop, then completely change direction and continue moving along. Even I have seen a UFO. I was just starting out as an amateur astronomer. It was twilight, and to my amazement I saw a bright object hovering over a nearby lake. The object was flashing white red and blue. I was completely taken aback and at a complete loss for an explanation.

There countless stories like the ones above. Still, I have heard even dedicated UFO proponents admit that probably 98% (or pick your own number) of sightings and encounters are hoaxes or misidentified normal phenomena. It is those 2% of sightings that we can't come up with a explanation for, that they believe represent the real encounters.

The problem with this argument is that you are moving from an unknown (hence unidentified flying object) to an answer (aliens exist) without any further evidence. Scientists work with unknowns all the time. They may have a hypothesis that they are trying to gather evidence for, but without that evidence, it remains an unknown. Law enforcement does the same thing. If a case can't be solved, they simply label it unsolved. They don't assume that aliens did it.

With that said, I want to look to see if there is any reason that this small percentage of cases might go unsolved if aliens are not visiting our planet. Some of them probably are hoaxes or hallucinations. As Randall Munroe of xkcd shows above, it doesn't take many people misunderstanding something they seen in the night sky to make a lot of UFO stories. In may other cases, we just don't have enough information to find any answer.

If you want to say aliens exist you need evidence. UFOs, even those cases that are never solved, just don't cut it. Take my story above. I see no fundamental difference between mine and many others out there, except I found out what it was. I stared at the object over the lake for hours off and on. As it slowly rose in the sky, its colors settled down into the bright familiar glow of the star Sirius. The wild colors were probably caused by a nearby fire or other air pollutants. Still if I had reported it as a UFO, without some key details, no one could have ever proven what that object was. I doubt we will ever solve all UFO cases but that doesn't bother me one bit. What gets me going is the trill of finding an answer, one I can explain and defend, and growing my understanding of how the universe really is.