Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Our little Habitable Zone in the Sky
Playing the Numbers Game
With Intelligent Design again in the newspapers, one is forced to read through and double-check the numerous "talking points" that are spit-fired at reporters, who tendency to investigate is already weakend by a "he said/she said" mentality. Carl Zimmer goes digging through PubMed and Science Direct to see what the impact the DI's funding of ID 'theory' has made in Biology circles. His response, absolute diddly.
I cared to go see what www.jstor.org had in its archives. The journals I ran a search for evolution, natural selection, intelligent design through were: Science, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Scientific Monthly, and the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science of the USA: Biological Science. Of the 27 articles found using "intelligent design," half are produced before 1990 when the CSC took on its crusade against Darwin, none are associated with DI fellows, and of those related at all to "origins research" most are fervently against the validity of ID. For "natural selection," I picked up 5,425 hits and for "evolution," 44,928 hits (from years 1859-2005).
But Jonathan Witt and his make-believe friend say that over 400 scientists are "convinced that Darwinian Evolution is deficient," so there must be a controversy. Not so says Professor Steve Steve and the 586 other Steves which have signed a statement supporting the validity of Biological Evolution. But as I mentioned in a previous posting, "the voices must be weighed, not counted." Who has the Ph.D.s in biology and genetics, who have put decades of research into the study and analysis of evolutionary theory, and the support of scientific organizations across the globe? Ok, moving on.
There is one final thing that bugs me about this research list.
In fact, some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but scientific books, including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species the later which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term.
Maybe its just me, but I think the scientific community and its approach to publishing valuable research has changed in the last 150 years. Also, scientific journals didn't exist when Copernicus was alive! Both Newton and Darwin's work was subject to extensive review in the Transactions of the Royal Society and other scholarly journals, as well as by fellow scientists like Edmund Halley and Asa Gray respectively. The errors of the books themselves I shall leave to groups better trained then myself to dissect the material within the covers of the books, if they havent already.
Is there a budding research program like Steve Myers tried to con Nightline into thinking? No. Is there a controversy in the scientific community about the validity of Biological Evolution? No. Will the media stop printing pseudo-scientific garbage? Probably not. Is it worth the effort to keep fighting for science? YES!
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Joseph Henry and Modern Quackery
Quackery. Under this head may be classed a great variety of petty artifices by which the vain, the superficial, and the unprincipled endeavor, generally at the expense of the labors of others, to elevate themselves into notice and impose upon credulity and ignorance of the public.
It should never be forgotten that true reputation must always be based on the favorable opinion of the few in any country who are capable of properly appreciating the labors of him who would claim to have enlarged the bounds of human knowledge or to have done anything worthy of commendation by his fellow men.
The higher and more abstruse the character of the investigations he professes to have made, the smaller is the number of those who are capable of rendering a proper verdict. In this case especially the voices must be weighed, not counted.
He therefore who seeks approbation for his labors by appealing to a tribunal which from its character and pursuits is not qualified to appreciate them is practising a deception and is justly entitled to the name of a quack.
The man of honorable feelings and imbued with the true spirit of science presents the results of his investigations to some learned society or to the editor of some scientific journal where they will be scrutinised before they are published and where they will be presented to the eye of men capable of pronouncing on their merits.
The man of true science must of necessity be a little in advance of his age and be beyond the appreciation of the multitude. He therefore scorns an appeal to so low a tribunal and would prefer to be the author of a discovery the importance of which but few men in the whole nation would be capable of appreciating.
How different is the proceeding of the quack; he affects to despise the opinion of men of science and accuses them of jealousy, prejudice, and ignorance.
He appeals immediately to the public generally through the newspapers, and for approbation calls not on the few who are capable of judging of his merits but the many who know nothing of the subject.
How many wonderful surgical operations are performed in our country every year and how rapidly are we increasing in our knowledge of this part of the healing art, if the public prints are to be credited. I would say to the public, beware of those whose merits are thus continuously proclaimed to the world, in whatsoever line they may be. Be not quick to trust your purse or your life in their hands.
In announcing, says Sir Humphry Davy, even the greatest and most important discoveries, the true philosopher will communicate his details with modesty and reserve. He will rather be a useful servant of the public bringing forth a light from under his cloak than a juggler exhibiting fireworks with a trumpeter to announce their magnificence.
Let it never be forgotten that there is no abiding reputation to be obtained by devious ways. So far from this, every departure from the strict code of scientific procedure acts in the end like a negative quantity in algebra which tells in the opposite direction: That no man can long deceive his fellow man; the masquerader is exhibiting himself before those who are familiar with masquerading; that true fame in due time is awarded to those who deserve it but not always awarded to those who are most anxious to obtain it. It is always the result of successful effort, but ought never to be the object of pursuit.
Henry was a proponent during the 19th century of best science elitism. He believed that science requires a hierarchy of professionals to set standards for a scientific community and that the scientific enterprise should not be democratic if ones goal is the accumulation of truth. This is not to say, those of lower social classes were to be denied their opportunities, but merely that "mob rule" should not be what determines what is true and best in science.
And YES by mob, I mean the general public, not those with advanced degrees who study these subjects for a living and a lifetime.
Thank you for enduring a gratuitous link dump.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
The Politics of Evolution
One cannot say this response from Bush about "Intelligent Design" is all that surprising. It has the right amount of double-speak to give the President wriggle room while making his point crystal clear. Chris Mooney over at ScienceG8 reminds us all that George was in favor of teaching creationism back in '99 and that the President seems to be contradicting his own Science advisor, John Marburger, who unequivocally stated that ID is not science. Remember folks, the reporters asked for his "personal views" and there was the caveat that curricula decisions "should be made to local school districts." Damn that man and his technicalities! "This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting faith-based bullshit taught as science," courtesy of biologist PZ Myers. Even conservative stalwarts are shaking their heads. Nice to see people of opposing political views can have enough sense to agree on what is NOT science.
I am not so far out of high school that I can't remember my HS biology classes. For the record I am a product of a catholic high school, where evolution was taught in biology without batting an eye. When most high school students take a biology course they have not yet had a formal year of chemistry and are taking either geometry or algebra II. So excuse me for saying so, but how in hell is a HS sophomore supposed to understand the arguments of Dembski and Behe? Not many, I would say that is not my intent to besmirch the intelligence of thousands of high school students across the country. They just don't have the background knowledge to judge these complex issues by themselves! These are issues for college level study not high school!
Its all for the children, says the Discovery Institute, an organization with the integrity of a snake-oil salesman.
Biology in high school must be taught better then it is today, but that would be by actually teaching evolution as the underlying concept in modern biology! I am just going to end with another PT link on how ID is has NO content.