Science

I thought I’d try to come up with an argument for Nisbet’s general position (though I don’t support the claims that all publicity is good publicity or that particular people should shut up), and came up with this (posted as a comment on Nisbet’s blog): Suppose U.S. demographics on belief and nonbelief were reversed, so that atheists made up 80%+ and those who explicitly believed in God were about 4-5% of the population (with the difference filled by agnostics, closeted believers, etc.). Suppose further that demographics of believers in science were reversed–with most physicists and biologists being religious believers, who commonly said things like “the Big Bang shows evidence of a beginning of time, started by a creator God,” and “the intricate design of biology shows the hand of God." ...

The March 2008 issue of Fortean Times has an interesting article by Rupert Sheldrake titled “Richard Dawkins calls.” In it, he describes his meeting with Dawkins for the filming of a segment originally planned to be part of Enemies of Reason, broadcast in August 2007. Apparently very little was filmed and nothing was used of the meeting. Sheldrake was to be interviewed as a defender of scientific evidence for telepathy, which Sheldrake has studied with empirical research, and written and published papers about. (Sheldrake is perhaps best known for his theory of morphogenetic fields, which he wrote about in his book A New Science of Life, which a reviewer for Nature called “the best candidate for burning there has been in years.” He believes that the more an idea is used, the easier it becomes for others to think of–along the lines of the “hundredth monkey” phenomenon which was a myth originated by Lyall Watson and promulgated by Ken Keyes, Jr., and debunked by philosopher Ron Amundson.) According to Sheldrake, he was promised that “this documentary, at Channel 4’s insistence, will be an entirely more balanced affair than The Root of All Evil? was” and that “We are very keen for it to be a discussion between two scientists, about scientific modes of enquiry." But when the meeting occurred, it quickly came to an end because, according to Sheldrake, Dawkins said “I don’t want to discuss evidence. … There isn’t time. … It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” (A charitable and likely accurate reading of what “that” refers to is specifically evidence for telepathy, though Sheldrake seems to suggest Dawkins means evidence of any kind.) Sheldrake reports that Russell Barnes, the director, also “confirmed that he was not interested in evidence either.” (Again, probably referring specifically to evidence for telepathy, rather than evidence in general.) Sheldrake responded that “If you’re treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it’s not irrational to believe in it. I thought that’s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn’t interested in taking part in another low-grade debunking exercise.” To which he reports that Dawkins responded, “It’s not a low-grade debunking exercise. It’s a high-grade debunking exercise.” I don’t see how anyone can reasonably disagree with Sheldrake’s statement. Sheldrake told them he had received assurances that this would be “a balanced scientific discussion about the evidence,” and when Barnes asked to see the emails in question, he showed them. Sheldrake writes, “He read them with obvious dismay, and said the assurances she had given me were wrong. The team packed up and left." UPDATE (April 25, 2008): Rupert Sheldrake has posted “Richard Dawkins comes to call” on his website, which looks to be more-or-less the same as the FT article. William Dembski has pointed to this article as evidence that Richard Dawkins has done the same kind of duping that he has complained about when the producers of “Expelled” did it to him, but I don’t think they’re quite the same in a number of respects. While Dawkins was (to his discredit) uninterested in the scientific evidence underlying telepathy that Sheldrake wanted to discuss, footage from Sheldrake wasn’t used in the final documentary. The case would have been parallel if Dawkins had pretended to be interested in the scientific evidence, completed the interview, and then used the footage in such a way as to criticize and ridicule Sheldrake. And it would have been parallel to how P.Z. Myers’ footage was used in “Expelled” only if Dawkins had conversed with Sheldrake about the scientific evidence for telepathy and then used excerpts from it in a film on another topic that hadn’t been mentioned. (Myers wasn’t asked questions about intelligent design, only about the relationship between religion and science.) UPDATE (June 8, 2008): P.Z. Myers has weighed in on this controversy at Pharyngula, arguing that Sheldrake’s evidence (which hasn’t been discussed, so far as I can see) doesn’t count as evidence because of a lack of a plausible mechanism. I disagree that lack of a mechanism means that anomalous data doesn’t count as evidence–it is reason to reject a proposed explanation, but it’s not a reason to deny that there is anomalous data. UPDATE (June 15, 2008): Sheldrake responds to Myers: [W]ith such a farrago of prejudice, ignorance and arrogance, it’s hard to know where to begin. It doesn’t really seem worth replying to people who aren’t interested in the facts but simply in venting their rage. ...

A few articles of interest from the last couple of issues of The Economist: February 23, 2008: “Moral thinking," a summary of recent research that sheds light on human moral reasoning processes. Video here. (A related, more in-depth story is Steven Pinker’s “The Moral Instinct” which appeared in The New York Times Magazine on January 13.) March 1, 2008: “Winds of change," a summary of research to use breathalyzer technology to diagnose medical conditions. “Telltale hairs," about new methods of forensics to use hair analysis to identify a person’s location at a given time (based on water consumption–could drinking imported bottled water be used to thwart this?).

On Saturday, March 22, the second SkeptiCamp will take place, in Castle Rock, Colorado. Reed Esau, one of the organizers presenters (also known as the originator of the celebrity atheist list), reports that the James Randi Educational Foundation will be sponsoring the event this time, and the list of likely speakers looks quite interesting: Some of those who plan to present have posted their intentions: writerdd on ‘How I Became a Skepchick’, Gary on pareidolia, R. G. on the Family Tomb of Jesus, Abel on Weapons of Mass Deception, Linda Rosa on Therapeutic Touch, Larry Sarner with a legislative update (on naturopath licensing), Crystal on a the new Fund for Thought initiative, Joe (a pediatrician) dispelling myths about vaccines and autism, Rocky Mountain Paranormal Society makes another appearance, Amy on why women need to be active in the skeptic movement, Jeanette on denialism, Rusty on the reproduction of JFK ballistics test, Paul on the scientific understanding of mystical, psychic, and occult experiences, Marlowe on a Gemini-1 mission UFO cover-up (?!) and/or how scammers victimize seniors, Pete on the Scientific Method and me on the basics of Modern Skepticism.Check it out. (Previously.) UPDATE (March 24, 2008): Reed has written a summary of the event. ...

Another paper that seems to advocate creationism has somehow managed to fly under the radar and get published in a science journal, Proteomics, authored by a couple of South Koreans. Unfortunately for creationists, the paper is not only badly argued, it is full of plagiarism. Pharyngula has a two-part summary, and one of the authors whose work has been copied has put together a side-by-side comparison of the plagiarized sections and their original sources (PDF). Lars Juhl Jensen has also reported details of the plagiarism at his blog. The authors, Mohamad Warda and Jin Han, are both in South Korea. South Korea, perhaps not coincidentally, is the home to four of the world’s ten largest megachurches and a young-earth creationist movement second only to the one in the U.S. in size, and larger in percentage of the population with having membership in creationist organizations. Ronald L. Numbers’ The Creationists (2nd ed.) states that “By 2000 the member ship [in the Korea Association of Creation Research] stood at 1,365, giving Korea claim to being the creationist capital of the world, in density if not in influence” (p. 418). UPDATE (February 11, 2008): Mike O’Risal at Hyphoid Logic finds someone (apparently a creationist) defending Warda and Han’s paper at something called “AcademicFreedomBlog.” That poster, “DrMC,” apparently thinks that plagiarism should be published as part of academic freedom. As it turns out, part of the reason that the logic seems so awry in the Warda and Han paper is that almost the entire thing (aside from a single paragraph, presumably the one with the God reference) has been cobbled together from pieces of other people’s work. UPDATE (February 13, 2008): The Guardian’s blog has an article on this issue, including a non-apologetic response from one of the authors (Warda) which denies plagiarism. UPDATE (March 14, 2008): A month later, Proteomics still hasn’t explained how it came to publish such an awful paper. Lars Juhl Jensen points out: ...

The Center for Public Integrity has released details of a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that has been blocked from publication for more than seven months. The report, titled Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was supposed to be released in July 2007. The Center for Public Integrity has obtained the study, which warns that more than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen “areas of concern”—including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee—may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants. ...

Daniel Brooks has written a fascinating summary of a 2006 conference put together by intelligent design advocates as a retrospective of the famous 1966 Wistar conference on evolution that is often cited by creationists who haven’t bothered to understand what actually happened at that conference. (It was an example of what happens when you try to come up with models for phenomena you don’t understand well enough to formulate models for.) The ID advocates invited numerous prominent scientists to the conference, including Brooks, whose book with E.O. Wiley, Evolution as Entropy, is a classic on evolution, thermodynamics, and information theory of the sort that creationists ignore except to quote mine (e.g., as Duane Gish did in his Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics). My favorite part of the summary is this paragraph, which ends the summary of a talk by ID advocate Ann Gauger: She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.Quick–time for an emergency coffee break, and let’s just forget that last question… The ID advocates repeatedly evaded tough questions from the scientists, and at the end of the conference… A few days after the meeting ended, we all received an email stating that the ID people considered the conference a private meeting, and did not want any of us to discuss it, blog it, or publish anything about it. They said they had no intention of posting anything from the conference on the Discovery Institute’s web site (the entire proceedings were recorded). They claimed they would have some announcement at the time of the publication of the edited volume of presentations, in about a year, and wanted all of us to wait until then to say anything.So it’s left to the real scientists, not the ID advocates, to publicly discuss their conference and its implications. Read the full summary at The Panda’s Thumb, as well as some revealing exchanges in the comments between ID advocate and young-earth creationist Paul Nelson, Dan Brooks, and Nick Matzke. John Lynch also has a nice brief summary. There is one notable error in Brooks’ summary, and that is his erroneous claim that Richard von Sternberg was fired as editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Sternberg is actually a false martyr who hasn’t actually lost any jobs, positions, or status as a result of his opinions.

Octavia, a New Zealand atheist who was formerly an administrator at IIDB until the recent controversies there, has followed through with her proposed creation of a community newsletter for participants of the proliferating atheist and freethought message boards, called Nexus and hosted at the Nontheist Nexus. I’ve just started looking at the first issue, and I went directly to the article “Atheist Cop,” which was a fascinating read. There’s also an excerpt from Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason,” some nicely done artwork, some stills from a film being made by one of the board members, an account of a scientist who spent eight months at McMurdo Station in Antarctica, “Sarpedon’s Weird Science” with links to interesting recent articles about undersea life, a couple of reviews of “The Golden Compass,” a few holiday recipes, and more. It looks like a great start, and I look forward to reading the rest of this issue and more in the future. ...

In a September 2007 talk, Dembski used an over-dubbed version of a computer animation of the inner workings of the cell that he took from Harvard and XVIVO, which he subsequently claimed he had downloaded from the Internet in a form that didn’t have the credits (e.g., from YouTube). Peter Irons has now shown that the content of Dembski’s latest book, Design of Life, shows that his explanation is a lie. That book includes a reference to the same video, with a link to its original location, marked as “last accessed” on January 25, 2007. Since he knew where the video came from in January 2007, he also already knew in September 2007. ERV points out the details of Dembski’s deception. (Via Pharyngula.) UPDATE (December 31, 2007): There is an entertaining exchange of letters between Peter Irons, Bill Dembski, and Dembski’s attorney John Gilmore posted at Pharyngula. ...

In an excellent blog post at Quintessence of Dust, Stephen Matheson patiently examines the details of DI Fellow Jonathan Wells’ only attempt to engage in scientific research in support of intelligent design by putting forth a hypothesis to be tested. By doing more of the work that Wells himself should have done, Matheson shows that Wells’ efforts were far below expectations for scientists and that his hypothesis has subsequently (but with no thanks to ID theorists, who did no work on the subject) been falsified. (Via Pharyngula.) ...