This post is only partly about uranium, but mostly about motivated reasoning – our ability to harness our reasoning power not to arrive at the most likely answer, but to support the answer we want to be true. But let’s chat about uranium for a bit. In the comments to my recent article on a renewable grid, once commenter referred to a blog post on skeptical science and quoted:

“Abbott 2012, linked in the OP, lists about 13 reasons why nuclear will never be capable of generating a significant amount of power. Nuclear supporters have never addressed these issues. To me, the most important issue is there is not enough uranium to generate more than about 5% of all power.”

This is the flip side, I think, to the misinformation about renewable energy I was discussing in that post. Let me way, I don’t think there is an objective right answer here, but my personal view is that the pathway to net zero that emits the least amount of carbon includes nuclear energy, a view that is in line with the IPCC. There is, however, still a lot of anti-nuclear bias out there, just as their is pro-fossil fuel bias, and pro-renewable bias, and every kind of bias. If you want to make a case for any particular source of power, there are enough variables to play with that you can make a case. However, factual misstatements are different – we should at least be arguing from the same set of verified facts. So let’s address the question – how much uranium is there.

There is no objective answer to this question. Why not? Because it depends on your definition. Most estimates of how much uranium there is in the world, in the context of how much is available for nuclear power, do not include every atom of uranium. They generally take several approaches – how much is in current usable stockpiles, how much is being produced by active mines, and how much is “commercially” available. That last category depend on where you draw the line, which depends on the current price of uranium as well as the value of the energy it produces. If, for example, we decided to price the cost of emitting carbon from energy production, the value of uranium would suddenly increase. It also depends on the technology to extract and refine uranium. The value of uranium is also determined by the efficiency of reactors.

Continue Reading »

Engaging on social media to discuss pseudoscience can be exhausting, and make one weep for humanity. I have to keep reminding myself that what I am seeing is not necessarily representative. The loudest and most extreme voices tend to get amplified, and people don’t generally make videos just to say they agree with the mainstream view on something. There is massive selection bias. But still, to some extent social media does both reflect the culture and also influence it. So I like to not only address specific pieces of nonsense I find but also to look for patterns, patterns of claims and also of thought or narratives.

Especially on TikTok but also on YouTube and other platforms, one very common narrative that I have seen amounts to denying history, often replacing it with a different story entirely. At the extreme the narrative is – “everything you think you know about history if wrong.” Often this is framed as – “every you have been told about history is a lie.” Why are so many people, especially young people, apparently susceptible to this narrative? That’s a hard question to research, but we have some clues. I wrote recently about the Moon Landing hoax. Belief in this conspiracy in the US has increased over the last 20 years. This may be simply due to social media, but also correlates with the fact that people who were alive during Apollo are dying off.

Another factor driving this phenomenon is pseudoexperts, who also can use social media to get their message out. Among them are people like Graham Hancock, who presents himself as an expert in ancient history but actually is just a crank. He has plenty of factoids in his head, but has no formal training in archaeology and is the epitome of a crank – usually a smart person but with outlandish ideas and never checks his ideas with actual experts, so they slowly drift off into fantasy land. The chief feature of such cranks is a lack of proper humility, even overwhelming hubris. They casually believe that they are smarter that the world’s experts in a field, and based on nothing but their smarts can dismiss decades or even centuries of scholarship.

Continue Reading »

As human civilization spreads into every corner of the world, human and animal territories are butting up against each other more intensely. This often doesn’t end well for the animals. This is also causing evolutionary pressures that are adapting some species to living in close proximity to humans.

Humans cause significant changes to the environment – we may, for example, clear forests in order to plant crops. We also convert a lot of land to human living spaces. We alter the ecosystem with lots of light pollution. We are also now warming the planet.

Humans also produce a lot of food and along with it a lot of food waste. One of the common rules of evolution is that if a resource exists, something will adapt to exploit it. Perhaps the most versatile species in terms of adapting to human sources of food is rats. They follow humans everywhere we go, and prosper in our shadow. New York city experiencing this phenomenon first hand – there is basically no effective way to deal with the rat problem in the city as long as they have a waste problem. They will need to significantly reduce the availability of food waste if they want to make any dent in the rat population.

There is another way that humans provide a selective pressure on the animals that live close to us – we kill aggressive animals. A recent study shows this effect in a population of brown bears that live in Italy, close to humans. This isolated population has become its own genetic subpopulation of brown bears with distinctive features, including a genetic profile associated with less aggressiveness. Make no mistake, these are still wild animals, and brown bears are a dangerous animal. But they are less aggressive than other brown bears.

Continue Reading »

This is not really anything new, but it is taking on a new scope. The WSJ recently wrote about The Rise of ‘Conspiracy Physics’ (hat tip to “Quasiparticular” for pointing to this in the topic suggestions), which discusses the popularity of social media influencers who claim there is a vast conspiracy among academic physicists. Back in the before time (pre world wide web), if you were a crank – someone who thinks they understand science better than they do and that they have revolutionized science without ever checking their ideas with actual experts – you would likely mail your manifesto to random academics hoping to get their attention. The academics would almost universally take the hundreds of pages full of mostly nonsense and place it in the circular file, unread. I myself have received several of these (although I usually did read them, at least in part, for skeptical fodder).

With the web, cranks had another outlet. They could post their manifesto on a homemade web page and try to get attention there. The classic example of this was the “Time Cube” – the site is now inactive but you can see a capture on the wayback machine. This site came to typify the typical format of such pages – a long vertical scrawl, almost unreadable color scheme, filled with boasting about how brilliant the creator is, and claiming a conspiracy of silence among scientists.

With web 2.0 and social media, the cranks adapted, and they have continued to adapt as social media and society evolves. Today, as pointed out in the WSJ article, there is a wave of anti-establishment sentiment, and the cranks are riding this wave. If you read the comments to the WSJ article you will see evidence of some of the contributing factors. There is, for example, a lot of “blame the victim” sentiment – blaming physicists, or scientists, academics, experts in general. They did not do a good enough job of explaining their field to the public. They ignored the cranks and let them flourish. They responded to the cranks and gave them attention. They are too closed to fringe ideas that challenge their authority.

Continue Reading »

Avi Loeb is at it again. He is the Harvard astrophysicist who first gained notoriety when he hypothesized that Oumuamua, the first detected interstellar object, might be an alien artifact. His arguments were pretty thin, not taken very seriously by the scientific community, and mostly did not pan out. However, Oumuamua has left the solar system and so any unanswered questions will remain forever unanswered. But Loeb has been riding his fame and his alien artifact narrative ever since, founding the Galileo Project dedicated to looking for alien technological artifacts. Recently, NASA discovered the third every interstellar object, and the first interstellar comet, 3I/ATLAS. (“3I” is simply the nomenclature for the third interstellar object, and “ATLAS” for the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System that made the discovery.) Loeb recently published a paper and is blogging that this too shows “anomalies” deserving of exploring the ET technology hypothesis. And again – I am not impressed.

Let me jump ahead a bit and say up front – I am not against exploring the alien hypothesis, pretty much in any context. Even though the probability may be low, the payoff would be huge, and it’s worth a consideration. I am not against looking for alien technological signatures. This may, in fact, be the best method for detecting an alien technological civilization. I also think that serious academics and scientists should be taking such efforts seriously and there should be no academic shame in engaging in them. So I am with Loeb to that extent.

What bothers me about Loeb is that his arguments are so terrible. He is just another classic example of an academic and scientist who has no apparent experience with scientific skepticism and therefore is falling for common pitfalls. He also appears to not have learned anything in the last seven years, which is greatly disappointing. In fact, I would argue that he is hurting his stated greater cause (with which I largely agree), to make searching for alien technology academically respectable. Loeb is essentially engaging in anomaly hunting, and shows no signs of understanding what that means. Let’s take a look at his latest list of apparent “anomalies” to see what I mean.

Continue Reading »

One potentially positive outcome from the COVID pandemic is that it was a wakeup call – if there was any doubt previously about the fact that we all live in one giant interconnected world, it should not have survived the recent pandemic. This is particularly true when it comes to infectious disease. A bug that breaks out on the other side of the world can make its way to your country, your home, and cause havoc. It’s also not just about the spread of infectious organisms, but the breeding of these organisms.

One source of infectious agents is zoonotic spillover, where viruses, for example, can jump from an animal reservoir to a human. So the policies in place in any country to reduce the chance of this happening affect the world. The same is true of policies for laboratories studying potentially infectious agents.

It’s also important to remember that infectious agents are not static – they evolve. They can evolve even within a single host as they replicate, and they can evolve as they jump from person to person and replicate some more. The more bugs are allows to replicate, the greater the probability that new mutations will allow them to become more infectious, or more deadly, or more resistant to treatment. Resistance to treatment is especially critical, and is more likely to happen in people who are partially treated. Give someone an antibiotic to kill 99.9% of the bacteria that’s infecting them, but stop before the infection is completely wiped out, and then the surviving bacteria can resume replication. Those surviving bacteria are likely to be the most resistant bugs to the antibiotic. Bacteria can also swap antibiotic resistant genes, and build up increasing resistance.

In short, controlling infectious agents is a world-wide problem, and it requires a world-wide response. Not only is this a humanitarian effort, it is in our own best self-interest. The rest of the world is a breeding ground for bugs that will come to our shores. This is why we really need an organization, funded by the most wealthy nations, to help establish, fund, and enforce good policies when it comes to identifying, treating, and preventing infectious illness. This includes vaccination programs, sanitation, disease outbreak monitoring, drug treatment programs, and supportive care programs (like nutrition). We would also benefit from programs that target specific hotspots of infectious disease in poor countries that do not have the resources to adequately deal with them, like HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, and tuberculosis in Bangladesh.

Continue Reading »

It’s probably not a surprise that a blog author dedicated to critical thinking and neuroscience feels that misinformation is one of the most significant threats to society, but I really to think this. Misinformation (false, misleading, or erroneous information) and disinformation (deliberately misleading information) have the ability to cause a disconnect between the public and reality. In a democracy this severs the feedback loop between voters and their representatives. In an authoritarian government it a tool of control and repression. In either case citizens cannot freely choose their representatives. This is also the problem with extreme jerrymandering – in which politicians choose their voters rather than the other way around.

Misinformation and disinformation have always existed in human society, and it is an interesting question whether or not they have increased recently and to what extent social media has amplified them. Regardless, it is useful to understand what factors contribute to susceptibility to misinformation in order to make people more resilient to it. We all benefit if the typical citizen has the ability to discern reality and identify fake news when they see it.

There has been a lot of research on this question over the years, and I have discussed it often, but it’s always useful to try to gather together years of research into a single systematic review and/or meta-analysis. It’s possible I and others may be selectively choosing or remembering parts of the research to reinforce a particular view – a problem that can be solved with a thorough analysis of all existing data. And of course I must point out that such reviews are subject to their own selection bias, but if properly done such bias should be minimal. The best case scenario is for there to be multiple systematic reviews, so I can get a sense of the consensus of those reviews, spreading out bias as much as possible in the hopes it will average out in the end.

Continue Reading »

A recent BBC article highlights some of the risk of the new age of social media we have crafted for ourselves. The BBC investigated the number one ranked UK podcast, Diary of a CEO with host Steven Bartlett, for the accuracy of the medical claims recently made on the show. While the podcast started out as focusing on tips from successful businesspeople, it has recently turned toward unconventional medical opinions as this has boosted downloads.

“In an analysis of 15 health-related podcast episodes, BBC World Service found each contained an average of 14 harmful health claims that went against extensive scientific evidence.”

These includes showcasing an anti-vaccine crank, Dr. Malhotra, who claimed that the “Covid vaccine was a net negative for society”. Meanwhile the WHO estimates that the COVID vaccine saved 14 million lives worldwide. A Lancet study estimates that in the European region alone the vaccine saved 1.4 million lives. This number could have been greater were in not for the very type of antivaccine misinformation spread by Dr. Malhotra.

Another guest promoted the Keto diet as a treatment for cancer. Not only is there no evidence to support this claim, dietary restrictions while undergoing treatment for cancer can be very dangerous, and imperil the health of cancer patients.

This reminds me of the 2014 study that found that, “For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%.” Of course, evidence published in the BMJ does little to counter misinformation spread on extremely popular shows. The BBC article highlights the fact that in the UK podcasts are not covered by the media regulator Ofcom, which has standards of accuracy and fairness for legacy media.

Continue Reading »

At CSICON this year I gave talk about topics over which skeptics have and continue to disagree with each other. My core theme was that these are the topics we absolutely should be discussing with each other, especially at skeptical conferences. Nothing should be taboo or too controversial. We are an intellectual community dedicated to science and reason, and have spent decades talking about how to find common ground and resolve differences, when it comes to empirical claims about reality. But the fact is we sometimes disagree, and this is a great learning opportunity. It’s also humbling, reminding ourselves that the journey toward critical thinking and reason never ends. On several topics self-identified skeptics disagree largely along political grounds, which is a pretty sure sign we are not immune to ideology and partisanship.

I spent most of the talk, however, discussing the issue of biological sex in humans, which I perceive as the currently most controversial topic within skepticism. My goal was to explore where it is we actually disagree. Generally speaking skeptics don’t disagree about the facts or about the proper role of science in determining what is likely to be true. We tend to disagree for more subtle reasons, although often the reason does come down to a lack of specific topic expertise on questions that are highly technical. The most important thing is that we actually engage with each-other’s arguments and positions, to make sure we truly understand what those who disagree with us are saying so that we can properly explore premises and logic.

Jerry Coyne, author of the book and blog Why Evolution is True, was also at CSICON and gave a talk essentially taking the opposing position to my own. His position is that biological sex in humans is binary, that this is the only scientific position, and anything else is simply ideology trumping science. His talk was after mine so I was very interested in how he would respond to my position. He essentially didn’t – he just gave the talk he was going to give and then included a single slide with his “responses” to my talk. Except, they weren’t responses at all, just a list of standard talking points that really had nothing to do with my talk.

Continue Reading »

How certain are you of anything that you believe? Do you even think about your confidence level, and do you have a process for determining what your confidence level should be or do you just follow your gut feelings?

Thinking about confidence is a form of metacognition – thinking about thinking. It is something, in my opinion, that we should all do more of, and it is a cornerstone of scientific skepticism (and all good science and philosophy). As I like to say, our brains are powerful tools, and they are our most important and all-purpose tool for understanding the universe. So it’s extremely useful to understand how that tool works, including all its strengths, weaknesses, and flaws.

A recent study focuses in on one tiny slice of metacognition, but an important one – how we form confidence in our assessment of a situation or a question. More specifically, it highlights The illusion of information adequacy. This is yet another form of cognitive bias. The experiment divided subjects into three groups – one group was given one half of the information about a specific situation (the information that favored one side), while a second group was given the other half. The control group was given all the information. They were then asked to evaluate the situation and how confident they were in their conclusions. They were also asked if they thought other people would come to the same conclusion.

You can probably see this coming – the subjects in the test groups receiving only half the information felt that they had all the necessary information to make a judgement and were highly confident in their assessment. They also felt that other people would come to the same conclusion as they did. And of course, the two test groups came to the conclusion favored by the information they were given.

Continue Reading »