Earlier this week I wrote about paradoxes in science, about how they are good things pointing the way toward new research and possibilities. Science deniers, however, exploit them to cast doubt on established science, without creating a viable scientific theory of their own. I gave as an example the solar neutrino problem – the fact that in the 1980s and 1990s neutrino detectors were detecting 1/3 to 1/2 the solar neutrinos than the standard model of particle physics predicted. Creationists used this to argue that the entire nuclear fusion model of stars was wrong.  It wasn’t long, however, before the missing neutrinos were discovered and the paradox resolved.

Recently I was asked about another sun-based paradox that creationists use to argue for a young earth – the faint young sun paradox. This was first pointed out by Carl Sagan and George Mullen.  Our models of stellar evolution indicate that the sun has been getting steadily brighter and hotter over the last four billion years. As hydrogen is fused into helium and helium therefore builds up on the core of the sun, it has to burn a little hotter in order to maintain equilibrium. The sun is burning about 30% hotter today than it was four billion years ago.

The sun is the major source of heat for the earth’s surface, and therefore a colder sun in the past would mean that the earth was colder, by about 25 °C.  By this factor alone the earth should have been mostly a ball of ice and snow up until 1-2 billion years ago. However the geological evidence points strongly to there being liquid water on the earth even when it was young.

Continue Reading »

Paradoxes exist in science for a very good reason. Science is a human-wide effort to understand how the universe works. When functioning properly it is therefore transparent and open. Further, science is describing one reality, and therefore all of the various scientific models for how bits of the universe work must all be compatible with each other. Science needs to all mesh into one big model of reality. Science also follows rules of evidence, logic, and cause and effect. You cannot invoke magic or arbitrarily suspend laws of physics as needed.

When one bit of evidence or scientific model contradicts another (they both cannot be correct at the same time) we have a scientific paradox. Since our models of reality are incomplete (and arguably always will be) scientific paradoxes pop up all the time.

How one responds to a scientific paradox reveals a great deal about how they approach science and knowledge. Those who crave certainty are made uncomfortable by paradoxes because they point to uncertainty. To a scientist, however, paradoxes are nothing less than awesome, the holy grail, the best thing since sliced bread. To a scientist an apparent paradox (really all scientific paradoxes are temporarily “apparent”) is a bright neon sign proclaiming, “This way for discovery!”

Paradoxes do not exist in reality, only in our current models of reality, and so they point the way to flaws in our current models. They therefore also point the way to further research to improve those models, fix errors, or fill in missing pieces. In short, scientists love paradoxes.

Continue Reading »

I spent this past weekend at NECSS 2012 – the North East Conference on Science and Skepticism. I won’t bore you with details you can get from looking at the NECSS website. I just want to give some random observations of what I think these conferences tell us about the state of the skeptical movement.

This is the fourth year of NECSS, and overall it was a very successful conference. We pretty much sold out our 400 seat venue. At the end of the conference Jamy Ian Swiss, our MC, polled the audience, asking if it was their first NECSS and also if it was their first skeptical conference. I was a bit surprised to see that most of the audience raised their hands to both questions. This is definitely a good thing – we appear to be bringing new people into the movement, as self-identified skeptics, and they are coming to our conferences. NECSS is also very much a science conference, and we market it that way, so it’s possible many of the attendees were there primarily for the science.

In my conversations with those attending, however, the prevailing sentiment was that NECSS was more than a science conference, but a cultural event for them. For those attending such a conference for the first time they felt it was almost a transformational experience. Many people have expressed this to me over the years of producing the SGU – they feel isolated in their family, their social circle, and their community. They feel they are the only one who thinks as they do – meaning skeptically. Being surrounded by 400 people who share a similar world view, all enjoying a shared experience of listening to presenters talk about science and celebrate rationalism was a new and profound experience for them.

Continue Reading »

I have a strict “do not feed the trolls” policy on this blog. OK – so it’s more of a strong suggestion frequently flouted. It’s very difficult to enforce. Even saying, “Do not feed the trolls,” is feeding them, and there always seems to be someone who caves to their goading, and then the troll is off to the races.

Commenter Dirk Steele has given us the latest example on my blog from Tuesday. He left a completely off-topic comment with the intent of derailing discussion on the actual topic of the blog post, and someone caved (no hard feelings, I sometimes do it myself, it’s hard to resist sometimes). Dirk was apparently frustrated that I was not responding to his comments on a five year old blog post. I rarely respond to comments on posts more than a week old, let alone five years (I trust you understand why I cannot maintain active discussions on over a thousand posts).  I also did not respond because Dirk did not address any of the points I made in the post (actually a series of five posts), but was simply regurgitating Thomas Szasz mental illness denial talking points. My responses, in other words, were already in the posts and did not need repeating.

But it has been a while since I have addressed the issue of mental illness denial head on. I also receive frequent requests to discuss this topic, and ADHD (attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder) directly, so this is as good an excuse as any to revisit this topic. I predict my response will not satisfy Dirk, but at least it will keep him out of other threads for awhile. This is Dirk’s most relevant comment, in which he gives us a Gish gallop of standard mental-illness denial talking points:

Continue Reading »

If you have been paying attention it is quite clear that at the core of the CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) movement is a deliberate and calculated attack against science as the basis for medicine and health care. The original brand of “alternative” medicine was the most accurate – it is an alternative to science and evidence-based medicine. The later terms, “complementary” and “integrative,” are deceptions meant to distract from the fact the CAM (as much as general statements can be made about such a loose category) is anti-science, and therefore cannot be integrated into science.

Fortunately for those of us who are trying to increase public awareness about the anti-science agenda of CAM, CAM proponents frequently show their hand. They advocate for changing the rules of evidence to suit their needs. They talk about integrating their therapies with science-based medicine, but then pull a bait and switch and push pure pseudoscience as first line treatment. They dismiss and denigrate legitimate science as if it were all a big corporate conspiracy. They advocate for (and are slowing getting) laws to weaken the science-based standard of care for medicine. And of course, they distort and misrepresent real science and promote abject pseudoscience.

Perhaps none are worse in their broad-based attack on science than the homeopaths. Really, if they are going to promote homeopathy, they have no choice. Homeopathy is pure magical pseudoscience, and it doesn’t work. A thorough review by the British government recently concluded that homeopathy is “witchcraft.” Science, therefore, is the homeopath’s worst enemy (as homeopath Werner aptly demonstrates in this hilarious YouTube video). To the homeopath there is no more frightening phrase than, “Science-Based Medicine.” To survive they must either destroy science or break it to their will (which would destroy science).

Orac brought my attention to the latest attack against science by a homeopath, Heidi Stevenson. He does a fine job of deconstructing the nonsense, but I feel the need to add my own comments. Stripped down the article has two points to make: anecdotal evidence is not only legitimate, it’s the best form of evidence; and science-based doctors use mostly anecdotal evidence too. Both points are wrong.

Continue Reading »

Multitasking – the act of doing more than one thing at the same time – is largely an illusion. You can’t do it, at least not well. The research over the last couple of decades has shown in numerous ways how difficult and wasteful attempting to multitask is. Now a new study purports to show a possible benefit to multitasking. I will get to that study later – first, let’s review how bad multitasking is.

Researchers believe that there is a processing bottleneck in the brain. Essentially, we don’t have multi-core processors with multi-threading. In neurological terms, there are various functional components to consider. One is executive function, which is the “supervisor” function in the frontal lobes. Executive function includes the process of focusing attention, allocating resources, coordinating information, and scheduling cognitive tasks. Everything that the brain does is a finite resource, including executive function.

Attention itself is also limited. Our attention can be spread out so that we are taking in a lot of information at once, although very superficially. In this mode we may be scanning our environment for something interesting, or something in particular, but missing a lot of detail. Or we may focus our attention down on one thing, taking in greater detail but at the expense of ignoring everything else. This spreading out or narrowing down of our attention applies no only to sensory input but also ideas.

Continue Reading »

There is an ongoing debate about the best strategies for long term weight control. I have repeatedly taken the position that, based mostly upon the clinical evidence but also what makes sense, that weight control is a matter of calories in vs calories out. The evidence consistently shows that exercise (increasing calories out) is extremely valuable to overall health but also specifically to weight control. Calories in is the tricky part.

There is no question that reducing caloric intake is critical to weight control, and that all diets that result in weight loss have one thing in common – reduced calories. It is difficult to achieve sustained calorie control, however. There is the pesky problem of hunger. Our bodies are very effective at regulating our eating behavior, and generally oppose underconsuming calories to result in weight loss. It is very difficulty to consistently resist such basic urges as eating when hungry.

This difficulty is exactly why there are so many fad diets, diet products, and beliefs about how to lose weight. No strategy works well, and I don’t have the magic answer, but we can look at the data we do have to see which strategies work better than the others. Recently a new study did just that, reviewing data from the 2001–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). This is a retrospective study based upon voluntary reporting, and therefore there are many possible sources of bias. The strength is that it is a fairly large study, looking at 4021 obese adults, and the result are reasonably representative of the general population in the US.

Continue Reading »

I wrote two weeks ago about the latest state bill attacking the teaching of evolution, this one in Tennessee. This particular bill has perhaps attracted more media attention than other similar bills because Tennessee was the location of the famous Scopes Monkey trial. At the time the bill had passed the state house and senate, and we were awaiting the decision of Governor Bill Haslam on whether or not he would sign the bill.

Now our waiting is over. Haslam did not sign the bill, but neither did he veto it. He allowed the bill to pass without his signature.

I had speculated that perhaps Haslam was looking for a politically acceptable (for Tennessee) justification for vetoing the bill, as he stated publicly that the bill might represent legislative intrusion into an area reserved for the board of education. It now seems that speculation was overly optmistic, but not entirely without merit. Haslam indeed did not want to appear to be supporting the bill, but also did not want to veto a bill that is apparently popular in his state. About his decision he has officially stated:

Continue Reading »

As a general rule it’s a safe bet that things in nature will turn out to be more complex than we initially imagine. We seem to pass through several general phases in our understanding of any phenomenon. First we have no idea what’s really going on and essentially invent fanciful superstitious ideas that are in line with our prejudices and desires. Then when we actually study the phenomenon scientifically we begin to see some regular patterns and some basic rules present themselves. We then are at high risk for assuming that we actually understand the phenomenon because we have developed simple rules to explain them, and certainly we know much more than we did in the pre-scientific superstitious phase.

But then as we make further observations and experiments those simple theories break down and we discover there are layers of depth and complexity to the phenomenon. We may feel for a while that our ignorance is growing more rapidly than our knowledge, as every discovery leads to yet more questions. Khunians may describe this as a period of scientific crisis leading to paradigm shift, when we are searching for radically new theories to solve the growing problems with existing theories.
This is a familiar story, but science does not always progress in this manner. Sometimes our observations and experiments lead us to an elegant simplicity, rather than a hoary complexity. As scientists we like to find regular patterns, and I particularly like finding meta-patterns – ways in which the scientific process itself tends to operate. What, then, do phenomena that appear to yield to elegant simplicity have in common? One feature, I suspect, is that the phenomenon is the result of emergent complexity.

Continue Reading »

According to a BBC article by reporter Tom Housden, scientists have discovered the ruins of an ancient city off the coast of India in the Gulf of Cambay. Artifacts from the city have been carbon dated to about 9,500 years ago. According to the article:

The remains of what has been described as a huge lost city may force historians and archaeologists to radically reconsider their view of ancient human history.

To put the significance of such a find in perspective, the oldest human cities are about 7,000 years old, and the oldest Indian city is Harrappa, about 4,600 years old. If the Cambay ruins are genuine, then that would predate the oldest known human city by more than two thousand years and the oldest Indian city by 5,000 years. The implications of this, if true, would indeed be huge. The BBC article offers this quote:

“There’s a huge chronological problem in this discovery. It means that the whole model of the origins of civilization with which archaeologists have been working will have to be remade from scratch,” he said.

It doesn’t take long, however, for the entire story to begin to unravel, once a critical eye it turned toward the claims. I always like to consider the plausibility of such claims. In this case, finding a city older than any previously known city is not entirely implausible. It’s possible that a culture in one location developed a city which did not survive and was forgotten to history. The oldest example of anything is always only as old as the oldest example discovered, and so scientists are frequently pushing back the date of the “oldest” something as new discoveries are made.

Continue Reading »