My last post on the new show FlashForward talked about the show’s use of the number 137, which I noted was prime, and I wondered if the show would follow convention and point it out. But it surprised me and didn’t do so. The 137 seconds of blackout in the show remain unreferenced again, at least directly. What I didn’t say in that last post (it didn’t occur to me until the next day) was that 137 (or, more precisely, 1/137) is a rough shorthand for the Fine Structure Constant.

I figured this was going too far, and that I was just being silly in seeing 137 as a potential reference to the Fine Structure Constant. At least until last Thursday’s episode of FlashForward where those who were left untouched (apparently) by the blackout were wearing rings with the insignia of alpha (α) which is … the symbol for the Fine Structure Constant.

So, what does this mean? Who knows. Alpha is one of the pure numbers, a dimensionless quantity that appears in a number of situations. A ratio, like Pi, which simply crops up when you do equations. It’s often used in quantum electrodynamics. I can only guess that, in the end, the show will offer some sort of quantum mechanical explanation for the blackout (they’ve already hinted at a pure science explanation). It’s interesting that the show is going that deep for an explanation. I’m used to JJ Abrams-style explanations in these shows, and was waiting for the FlashForward equivalent of “Red Matter” to show its face here. That may still happen, but for now the show seems intent on giving a more hard-science explanation. Bully for them, say I.

If you want to learn more about Alpha, go to the website for the Sixty Symbols project, and click on the video for α. Very interesting stuff.

tags: science, science fiction, television
No Squawks »

Here’s an article over at the New York Times about the growing belief in creationism among Muslims in the Islamic world. I’m not quite sure what to make of it. The article seems to go out of its way to suggest that it is a) not “young-Earth” creationism like within some subsets of American Christianity, and b) that it is not very widespread. But this contradicts what I’ve heard from a number of experts in Islam over the years, and what I heard personally from Muslims in visits to mosques I made in 2002.

In those visits, I got the distinct impression that many Muslims believe in something like young-Earth creationism, though it certainly varies in form from that one finds in Christianity. The NYT article suggests that some Muslims take the “creation in six days” more figuratively, since the Koran specifically says that the days might be “ages” of a thousand years, but that’s not all that different from what many (if not most) Christian creationists believe. In short, the article seems to go out of its way to say that Islamic creationism isn’t like those kooky Evangelicals in the US, but everything I saw in the article led me to the opposite conclusion. I simply cannot imagine a NYT article giving this much benefit of the doubt to conservative Christians. No surprise there.

As I’ve said before, I have no problem with evolution as a theory, and as far as compatibility/incompatibility with scripture, I think it’s all rather silly. But it’s also important to note that the real objections Evangelicals have with evolution is philosophical and theological, not scientific. Sure, some creationists make (or try to make) scientific arguments, and by their fixation on science it’s understandable that one could see it that way. But their issue is not with the science per se, but with what they think the implications of evolution are for their theology.

And they’re not being paranoid, since many outspoken scientists (say, Richard Dawkins), are making precisely those philosophical arguments that annoy creationists so acutely. It should be noted that Dawkins’ arguments from science about God are about as legitimate as creationist’s claims about science. Dawkins is not a very convincing philosopher. The simple fact is that the science does not back his philosophical conclusions the way he thinks they do.

Still, the rise of creationism among Muslims is interesting, but completely predictable. Here’s this for science among Muslims (and this came from the Imam of a very large, Manhattan mosque): Adam was white because he was made from a bone; Eve was black, because she was made from the dirt. This was the Imam’s explanation for the origin of the races. And no, when I asked, he specifically answered that he didn’t mean it metaphorically, but literally. Yikes.

While I’m tempted to just say that Evangelicals (and Muslims) should just get over their opposition to evolution, I know that’s counterproductive. Sure, the whole thing is really based on a misreading of the intent of the authors of the Old Testament (it’s more about who we are as humans in relation to God than it is about the physical, scientific causes for the existence of man), but their philosophical arguments about the relative merits of scientific materialism are worth taking seriously. As usual, most Evangelicals take up the wrong flag in defense of principle. There are any number of arguments they could use to put people like Dawkins in their place, but arguing the science isn’t it. After all, it’s not the science Dawkins gets wrong. It’s most everything else.

But I digress…

tags: religion, science
No Squawks »

Amy Wallace has an excellent article at wired.com about the anti-vaccination movement. She interviews Philly pediatrician Paul Offit, one of the creators of the RotaTeq vaccine and an advocate for mandatory vaccination, who is often one of the targets of anti-vaccine activists. Hell, my instinct is to allow people some leeway on choosing to vaccinate or not, but even I understand that herd immunity is important. And given how extensively these vaccines have been tested, I can’t see any rationale for not vaccinating save for some religious reasons.

Sorry, but the anti-vaccine people are just so damned infuriating. Right up there with the anti-DDT people. You know, the #^%!@#% who indirectly killed millions of Africans. Yeah, my blood is boiling a bit now. Time for a deep breath and a count to ten… Ah. Better.

tags: culture, science
No Squawks »

Here’s an article over at Seed about the continuing attempts to build a working simulation of the human brain in a supercomputer. These articles tend to be a bit too optimistic for my taste. Perhaps it is because the objections to such projects are primarily philosophical, and that the writers tend to share the reductionist premises of such projects (if we can just model everything perfectly, then we can recreate the human brain).

I tend to be skeptical of the reductionist argument. At least in this article they reference some of the philosophical issues:

Some philosophers, like Thomas Nagel, have argued that this divide between the physical facts of neuroscience and the reality of subjective experience represents an epistemological dead end. No matter how much we know about our neurons, we still won’t be able to explain how a twitch of ions in the frontal cortex becomes the Technicolor cinema of consciousness.

The article goes on to say that the scientists take this criticism seriously, but offer no real evidence of it. They talk about “transcending” traditional neuroscience, but it is difficult to take that seriously when they’re using, essentially, the same tools and approach of traditional neuroscience.

One need not even go so far as to raise the religious opposition to the concept of physical reductionism. We don’t need go so far as talking about souls. We can simply say that it is likely that consciousness as we know it is as much a function of phenomena at the quantum level as it is the mere three-dimensional biological level. In fact, it seems very likely to me that this is true. So, until a computer can fully model the brain at the quantum level, I’m not sure current models will prove accurate. They’ll be useful, I’m sure, but I imagine they’ll turn on these fully realized models and find that they don’t do what we expect them to do.

I think of it kind of like reverse engineering a movie. You can digitize each frame. Break it down into pixels with color wavelengths. Sample the audio by channel, and map out its waveform. Break it down into its bare minimum components. You can even try to recreate it in another form. But how much are you really learning about it? Are you learning about “movies” or just a specific movie? And could you recreate a new movie based on what you learned by ripping the thing apart? Perhaps. But would anyone watching it recognize it as a movie? Or would it be a complete mash of incomprehensible images and sounds?

Consciousness seems much the same kind of thing to me. We only understand it as it plays out in front of us. Like the movie, we understand it by watching it, not by ripping it into its component parts. That’s not to say we can’t learn quite a bit from this approach, only that I think we’ll never learn enough about consciousness through this approach. We’re still a few orders of magnitude below the necessary understanding of the universe to have anything close to a working model of what makes us what we are.

tags: science, technology, whatever
No Squawks »

Cassini continues to provide us with utterly fantastic imagery of Saturn, but nothing quite like this. It is a composite of 75 exposures, stitched together seamlessly. And the actual photo is enormous (28 megapixels), and is apparently so detailed that if you examine it closely, you’ll find several of Saturn’s moons in the shot. Gnarly.

Here’s the small version. If you want to see the fully embiggened photo, click here.

tags: science, whatever
No Squawks »

One of my favorite bloggers interviews one of my favorite authors. They spend a great deal of time talking about the technological singularity, and I’m happy to see that Scalzi and Reynolds seem to think the same thing about the singularity as I do, particularly regarding how remarkably adaptable people are when it comes to new tech. Definitely worth a viewing (it’s about twenty minutes).

tags: Books, culture, science, science fiction, technology
No Squawks »

I’ve talked about this before on this blog, but I recently came across a post at Skepticblog that kind of irritated me because it demonstrated all the problems over the debate between evolution’s defenders and its critics. In particular, it was this post about a debate, of sorts, between the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Jonathan Wells and his critics.

My point here is not to rehash the debate. I have no problem with evolution, as I’ve said. The key element for me was my discovery that the common claim of there being no observed speciation events was simply wrong. Since scientists have indeed observed the emergence of various species through a variety of pressures (including naturally induced changes) it seems rather foolish to me to object to evolution as a theory.

That said, evolution’s defenders need to stop being pricks.

The skepticblog post, by Brian Dunning, starts off its criticism of Dr. Wells with an admitted ad hominem:

I would like to rebut a few of the things Dr. Wells said. But first, I think it’s important to understand who Dr. Wells is and what he’s about. Now, there’s no way to do this without the appearance of an ad hominem attack, so all I can do is state that I’ve got nothing negative to say about him personally (I don’t know him personally) and nothing I say about him or his background should be construed to say anything about the accuracy of his scientific claims.

If the information is not in regards to his scientific claims, then why say it? Because it is not merely the “appearance” of an ad hominem, but actually is an ad hominem attack. Sure, it makes Wells look silly to say that he is a member of the Unification Church, and that he spent time in prison as a conscientious objector. That his degree was paid for by the Unification Church. Yadda yadda.

But again, as Dunning admits, this has nothing to do with the argument. For a counterexample, should we ignore everything Sir Isaac Newton said about anything just because he was into numerology? Of course not. That’s what an ad hominem argument suggests we do, though. And despite Dunning’s argument to the contrary, that’s his purpose in including all this information. Denning thinks this information matters. But it doesn’t.

By starting off with an ad hominem, Dunning invites those he’s trying (ostensibly) to convince to ignore him. In short, he’s being a prick.

His other error stems from questioned motives. It is “obvious” that Wells is really trying to prove a literal interpretation of Young Earth Creationism. Wells is being “disingenuous” about believing in a four-and-a-half billion year-old earth.

The problem here is that Dunning is making all sorts of assumptions about both Wells and the Discovery Institute that simply aren’t true. For instance, he doesn’t seem to recognize that perhaps the Institute’s comfort with Wells (as a Unification Church member and as a conscientious objector), which Dunning questions, is because Discovery is actually being honest about what it is. Sure, most critics of evolution are going to be fundamentalists, but certainly not all of them. And opposition to evolution is not, de facto, an admission of being a fundamentalist Christian. The very fact that Wells, a Moony, is a fellow at Discovery should inform the skeptic that his assumptions about the Institute may be wrong.

Of course, it’s rhetorically convenient to lump Discovery in as a bastion of Christian fundamentalism (it isn’t). Senior Fellow Michale Behe has said that he believes in common descent, for instance. There are Catholics, Anglicans, and other Christians among the Fellows of the organization, hardly any of which are fundamentalists. There is a wide diversity of belief among the people attached to the group, and to assume otherwise is to demonstrate a distinct lack of curiousity on Denning’s part. In short, he’s being a prick. He’s assuming his opponents are ideologically driven when it’s certainly possible (even likely) that they’re not.

And by making the suggestion, Denning opens himself (and his blog) up to the suggestion that he is, himself, as ideologically driven as those he’s criticizing. Rather than taking the high road and limiting his criticism to the scientific facts, he’s taken on Wells personally, raising questions about his religious beliefs and associations. This is not how you win arguments.

Of course, being a prick about this doesn’t mean Denning is wrong on the scientific facts. But you’ve got to wade through a river of rhetorical shit to get to the real point. Few people are going to do that.

Of course, this doesn’t matter if you’re preaching to the choir, which clearly Denning is. The post isn’t meant to actually convince anyone. The problem is that nearly all criticisms of Discovery and other dissenters from Darwinism are approached the same way. It’s idiotic.

And it’s idiotic because the scientific evidence is on Denning’s side. But his attitude makes it sound like it’s not. The defensiveness by beginning with an ad hominem undercuts the strength of the scientific arguement. He makes the mistake of allowing his own distaste for Discovery lead him into making assumptions that further undercut his own credibility.

Denning wants to “entertain, enlighten, and educate” he says. But he’s really only (maybe) doing the first. If he really wanted to educate people, he would stick to the unadulterated facts. The ad hominem is unnecessary. Wells is simply wrong.

If defenders of evolution want to get their point across, they need to stop with the ideological baloney. Stick to the science. Answer the criticisms. Admit evolutionary theory’s weaknesses. Stop being so defensive. Most of the post was aimed at discrediting Wells (admittedly, not that difficult), rather than reiterating the most important points about scientific fact.

Partly I say this because I’ve worked in the past with some of these people and know them. They’re not being disingenuous. Most of them have philosophical objections to the methodological naturalism of modern science. I think that’s a legitimate point, even as I recognize that there’s no real solution to it. Science is what it is, and should remain so. Their opposition to evolution is sincere and rational. Painting them as ideologues is lazy, and in the end, counterproductive.

tags: culture, religion, science
1 Squawk »

Tim Hammond thinks so, over at TCSDaily:

To illustrate the problem, look back what we thought were the most important challenges, say, thirty years ago: a vaccination for malaria; discovering the causes of heart disease and cancer; curing genetic conditions; a workable theory of quantum gravity; new sources of energy, in particular nuclear fusion.

We have made little or no progress in any of these areas, or the dozens of others we could list alongside them. And while we have made amazing progress in the last 100 years, it has been a long time since we achieved anything of real note.

Hmmm. Well, I guess there is some truth to this. But when I think about genetics, for instance, I’m reminded that DNA was only discovered in 1953, and while the theoretical understanding of DNA and its role in human development hasn’t changed dramatically (ie., curing genetic conditions) the engineering surrounding DNA has changed dramatically. Genetic engineering is still very much in its toddler phase (if not its infancy). So I’m wondering if the complaint is really valid.

Indeed, it’s difficult to look back at the last thirty years and not agree with Hammond in the broad strokes, and yet disagree with him on the ground. After all, without the incremental developments in quantum mechanics over the years, the modern high-tech industry (including computers, cell phones, and the Internet) wouldn’t be possible. Sure, these are mostly engineering advances, but engineering is always slower than theory.

Hammond also just mentions a workable theory of quantum gravity. Einstein’s relativity is only a century behind us, of course. A real, testable and confirmed theory of quantum gravity would be a scientific discovery unmatched in all of human history. That it hasn’t been discovered yet only underscores the difficulty of it. It has been a chief preoocupation for physicists for several generations now.

And some of this is political, rather than scientific. I think a good argument can be made that had nuclear fission been embraced more widely, we might be closer to harnessing fusion. But again, that’s a significant problem. And isn’t it complaining a bit too much to say that no new energy sources have been discovered when the 20th century was not only the century of fossil fuels, but nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind? None of these were harnessed in any significant way prior to the 20th century.

I think this attitude is a good example of why I have become so negative about the idea of a technological singularity. For those of us who grew up in the last quarter of the 20th century, perhaps progress does seem to have come to a screeching halt. But when we recognize that the technology we enjoy everyday has a lifespan of, at best, that of our parents, we can appreciate how fast it has been. We are accustomed to change, to dramatic change, even, and demand faster change every day when it comes to technology. We expect change. That wasn’t always true, but it is now. And if we’re expecting change, can the singularity really happen? A moment when change becomes so fast that we can’t expect it anymore? As fast as technology is changing now, I think expectations are changing even more quickly.

But back to Hammond. It’s certainly true that there has been no fundamental shift in science or medicine for a few generations. But, then, modern science and medicine are very, very young. Two centuries, really, though more if you stretch the definition. And while I can heartily agree with the likes of Glenn Reynolds and say “faster please” for these coming breakthroughs in medicine and science, I understand that these things do take time. Change brings dislocation and as we’ve seen with transgenic crops and now nanotechnology, there are a lot of people there who cannot affirm the “faster please” mindset.

So I wring my hands over this. I would like things to come faster. I would love to see a theory of quantum gravity and a malaria vaccine (there are a number of current candidates, by the way, so it may not be long before Hammond has to scratch this off his list). But I am aware of how quickly things are going now, and I’m aware of the problems that could arise. I’m hopeful, but cautious. I don’t mind that theory takes a breather while engineering catches up (which, to me, seems to be what is happening right now).

tags: culture, science, technology
No Squawks »

Ok, so they don’t know this for sure yet, so the title of this post may be wrong, but it’s worth noting.  In the original version of Einstein’s General Relativity, Einstein added a “cosmological constant” to the formulas in order to maintain a universe that would not, due to gravity, collapse on itself.  Later, Einstein called this one of his greatest mistakes.  Einstein wanted a static universe, and his constant provided it: an expulsive force to counteract gravity.  Observations, however, soon proved that the universe is expanding and not static, so Einstein abandoned the idea.

Well, as it turns out, there may well indeed be something to that “cosmological constant” after all, that the “nothing” of the universe might actually weigh “something.” Sure, it’s not exactly what Einstein had in mind, but the function of the cosmological constant might be able to help scientists explain something of more recent discovery: dark energy.  Scientists suggest that dark energy is an expulsive force (extra mass) which keeps the universe expanding.

Scientists don’t know exactly what this dark energy really is, but it looks like Einstein’s intuition about the universe might have had some truth to it after all.

tags: science
1 Squawk »

Okay, a few days ago I was stumbling around on the internet, and I come across a story about how when you peel off adhesive tape from a surface, it produces X-rays.  And I laugh, thinking that this has to be some sort of joke.  The story wasn’t on what I’d call a reputable website.  So, I keep stumbling.  But over the next few days I see more and more of this, until finally this morning I come across this story over at Scientific American: Science Friction: An X-Ray Machine Energized by Adhesive Tape.

Holy Crap.  It’s actually true.

I mean, we normally think of x-ray machines as complicated and dangerous.  They require a radioactive source.  Doctors hide behind lead-lined walls in other rooms while they bombard you with the radiation while all your more precious bits are covered by those big lead-lined blankets.

And here we are getting bombarded with them every time we wrap a Christmas gift.  (Don’t worry, it’s not dangerous, I’m just trying to be funny).

They actually took a rudimentary x-ray of a finger with, essentially, a spool of tape on a cassette reel.  Okay, it’s a little more complicated than that, but really not much.  They’re talking about x-ray machines that not only don’t have permanently radioactive sources, but x-ray machines that don’t even require electricity.

Amazing stuff.

tags: science, technology
No Squawks »