Life, Liberty & The Pursuit of Happiness

Science vs. Faith: Crux of the Matter

by Anurag Wadehra

Following up on Reena's post, I noticed another article by Jerry Coyne in Edge called Does Empirical Nature of Science Contradict Revelatory Nature of Faith? . A lot of smart folks have commented on this debate, but none come close to the crux of the matter as eloquently as the post by Steven Pinker. He correctly identifies and eloquently defends REASON as the root of matter.

Science cannot be walled off from other forms of belief. That includes meaning and morality – reason connects them all. The same standards of evidence that rule out unparisimonious, unfalsifiable, or empirically refuted hypotheses in science also rule out crackpot conspiracy theories, totalizing ideologies, and toxic policy nostrums. Moral systems depend on factual beliefs, informed by psychology and biology, about what makes human beings suffer or prosper. They depend on standards of logical consistency that make it possible to apply the principle of fairness.

Could it be...free will?

by Reena Kapoor

It's with great delight that I want to point you to links that provide the transcripts from two podcasts The Power of Plasticity that I heard recently on All In The Mind.  The podcasts were created by Natasha Mitchell who interviews two scientists about the new findings and scientific evidence for the idea that the human brain - even the older, adult one - is much more malleable than we think. And that we have the power to make powerful changes even to the brain's physical circuitry, by altering our thinking!  

Rename it Surrealand?

by Reena Kapoor

This article (Switzerland's Green Power Revolution...) in the WSJ today talked about how Switzerland now has a constitutional amendment that mandates that geneticists conduct their research without trampling on a plant's dignity. So plant geneticists now have to first debate the finer points of plant dignity with ethicists before they can get permission to embark on any research.

One scientist correctly asked: "Where does it stop?" asks Yves Poirier, a molecular biologist at the laboratory of plant biotechnology at the University of Lausanne. "Should we now defend the dignity of microbes and viruses?" 

BUT that is when it got really bizzare...

Seeking clarity, Dr. Poirier recently invited the head of the Swiss ethics panel to his university. In their public discussion, Dr. Poirier said the new rules are flawed because decades of traditional plant breeding had led to widely available sterile fruit, such as seedless grapes. Things took a surreal turn when it was disclosed that some panel members believe plants have feelings, Dr. Poirier says.

Read on to discover there is indeed no limit to human lunacy!

'Tis Religion...

by Reena Kapoor

According to this article Kids Your time is Up, Australian Broadcasting company is promoting a Global Warming Game which allows kids to calculate by what age they should be dead in order to avoid leaving a carbon footprint.  Here is what the article says...

Watch out, Australians. According to the state-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), most of you have overstayed your welcome on this good earth.

The colorful flash site, called Planet Slayer starts with a cartoon called the "Adventures of Greena" and ends by suggesting to vulnerable children that they are pigs whose very existence has a horrible impact on the global environment.

Implants vs. Ideology

by Reena Kapoor

In this excellent article Second Thoughts on Breasts that I came upon in The American, Amity Shlaes talked about how the FDA reveresed the 14-year ban on silicone implants in 2006 after finding them both "safe and effective".  The media of course downplayed this news but, worse, the assumption was that nothing was lost so no need to look back on what happened. 

There was no apology for the ban which was based on fear mongering (fully supported by the FDA) and big company bashing - anything but science.  But the losses were real. And not just to women many of who were breast cancer survivors and could not avail of this technology, but there was also no compensation to shareholders for the lost equity and billions paid out in law suits and to the thousands of workers who had to be laid off work by Dow as a result of this. Why?

Interestingly, even scientists failed to look at the facts and let misplaced ideology color their viewpoint.  The executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell was a key player in giving credence to David Kessler, commissioner of the FDA by publishing his article that laid out the case for the ban. When data began to emerge about the safety of the implants here is what she had to say in her astonishing 1996 manifesto Science on Trial:

Statistics and Evolutionary Psychology: Just So Stories

by Anurag Wadehra

In a recent post, I mentioned how gross statistical correlation can be fodder for all sorts of vacuous, partisan claims. In fact, even many respectable areas of science are not immune from similar abuses. 

For instance, evolutionary psychology seems to be a science ideally suited for prime time news. Since it attempts to discern evolutionary adaptations behind common social and psychological phenomena, ev-psych is fraught with peril. Many explanations for modern human behavior get sugar coated in evolutionary terminology and can come across as "just so stories" which are hard to verify in absence of historical data or deeper causal mechanisms. Combine its speculative nature with the media's appetite for juicy human stories, and we have a parade of scientific surveys that assert:

Bad guys really do get the most girls [New Scientist Magazine]

Another Misplaced War

by Reena Kapoor

This article by Dr. Jerome Groopman The Thirty Years' War is rather old but should be illuminating for all who think we have "won the war on cancer"; and not just because this is not so given cancer's multiple manifestations but to learn how inappropriate - and actually harmful - the war metaphor has been in this effort. 

Dr. Groopman's comments are highly instructive on how misguided activists get the government involved in their favorite projects, set up vast bureaucracies and invariably cause more harm than good.  We need to learn to beware of such causes, no matter how well meaning, and warm and fuzzy they may seem! 

Caveat: Dr. Groopman does not seem to take too much issue with government spending for science, just in science being directed and led by breaucrats. Nonetheless, a very illuminating read on the history of this effort since the 70's!

Reasoning with unreasonable people: Joe Nickell

by Anurag Wadehra

One of my recent find is the work of Joe Nickell. He is the preeminent investigator of paranormal phenomena, a real-life Scully of X-Files, who has looked into ghosts, crop-circles, UFOs and other such miracles. While there are many others who debunk paranormal phenomena, Nickell is unique in his approach on how he engages with the believers of such phenomena.

Two characteristics stand out: first, he listens actively to the most bizarre of claims with full attention to all details and second, he genuinely respects the folks baffled by these phenomena. He makes a simple point - IF (a big if) you care to change people's opinion, you have to listen to them with respect. This is a prerequisite. Only after that, can you hope to possibly persuade them away from their irrational beliefs.

Bjorn's Billions

by Reena Kapoor

Linking to Bjorn Lomborg's articulate and reasonable op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal How to Get the Biggest Bang for 10 Billion Bucks on which of the world's pressing problems -- hunger, poverty, environment and even terrorism -- most deserve investment.  His criteria? Which of these issues deliver the best bang for the invested buck taking into account all the costs (including long- and short-term environmental impact) that these problems impose?  His environmentalist buddies ought to be listening for he is (mostly) a reasonable green (such a thing is possible).  Guess which burning issue of our time does not make the cut? Climate change. According to Mr. Lomborg - and he is a complete believer in global warming -

Carbon & Its Conceited

by Reena Kapoor

Peter Huber's article The Carbon Curtain in Forbes talks about the uselessness of climate modeling computers which may be paid, at least intellectual, heed in Hollywood, Stockholm, Brussels and even some parts of Washington but are simply being ignored by the rest of the world. The modelers and their computers have failed to convince the majority of people - even in environmentally "enlightened" nations - to radically alter their lifestyle. Peter Huber points us to the work of one very knowledgeable energy analyst, Vinod K. Dar, (who runs Dar & Company), a consultant to the energy industry, in Bethesda, Md who points to much reason for doubts about global warming. But more importantly Mr. Dar talks about the divide in climate belief-systems: