Seed Mag follow-up
Christopher Mims of the Seed staff was kind enough to post here, to reassure all three of my readers that the Seed Magazine site will be relaunched soon, and that it will be “fully the equal of the magazine.”
Good news.
I see from various blogs [links below] that the print edition of Seed has indeed relaunched, with advance copies going out to prominent science bloggers. The Seed Media Group site says the mag will be available worldwide on October 1, but I'm going to sneak down to the big Hudson News in GC after work to see whether it has arrived yet.
I'm pleased to see that its cover story, a Chris Mooney piece on the evolution/intelligent design “controversy,” is already sparking debate on Luboš Motl's blog, even before the magazine hits newsstands. That's both the point and the value of Seed, in my opinion: to highlight the role of science in our governance and culture. To see such a vibrant discussion appear so soon is, to my eyes, delightful.
[Links: Luboš Motl; Clifford Johnson; Peter Woit; Chris Mooney and his The Republican War on Science.]
I'm eager to get the new Seed, but this is a busy period for me, and I don't know how quickly I'll actually read the thing. Here's a list of things I'm working on right now, usually at lunch and on the train:
- the book Evolution : The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory
- daily reads of the Wall Street Journal
- a self-taught review of algebra, trigonometry, and calculus
- the book The Joy of Mixology : The Consummate Guide to the Bartender's Craft
- a reread of Tender Is the Night, which I've sort of stalled on, because I pretty much hate Dick and Nicole Diver and their social circle
- Planning a wedding
- Revamping my website (look, Todd, color!)
All this in addition to watching cool TV shows (My Name Is Earl, Everybody Hates Chris), cooking yummy dinners, and sleeping. I don't know where I'm going to slot Seed in, but I'll have to find some place for it.
Oh my god
Americans are scientifically illiterate, reports the Times. For example:
One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.
The CIA Factbook tells me that there are roughly 235 million Americans above the age of 14. I don't know how many of those are adults, meaning 18 or older, but let's say 90%.
That means 42.3 million Americans believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
42.3 million.
That is astonishing.
[Links: Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much - New York Times; CIA — The World Factbook — United States]
Deepak, on intelligent design
I always thought Deepak Chopra was a bullshit artist and a scammer, but his questions about evolution are delightfully stupid. Various commenters on the blog address his questions, as do a few science blogs (I'll link to one below), but here's my favorite among his questions:
7. What happens when simple molecules come into contact with life? Oxygen is a simple molecule in the atmosphere, but once it enters our lungs, it becomes part of the cellular machinery, and far from wandering about randomly, it precisely joins itself with other simple molecules, and together they perform cellular tasks, such as protein-building, whose precision is millions of times greater than anything else seen in nature. If the oxygen doesn't change physically — and it doesn't — what invisible change causes it to acquire intelligence the instant it contacts life?
Let me repeat this: If the oxygen doesn't change physically — and it doesn't — what invisible change causes it to acquire intelligence the instant it contacts life?
So, oxygen becomes smart as soon as we breathe it in? Really? I had no idea! So that must mean that when I drink beer, it becomes super-intelligent beer! Genius beer, even!
But wait. What happens to beer's genius when I go take a piss?
[Link: Intelligent Design Without the Bible, via Kottke; Moonbat anti-evolutionist: Deepak Chopra]
Edited to turn on comments and to add that among the commenters on Deepak entry is Steven Colbert.
It's not just Kansas, folks
A bill has been introduced in the New York State Assembly to require the teaching of both intelligent design and evolution in all public schools in the state.
Let's see if it goes anywhere.
God of the gaps
Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, appeared on Tucker Carlson Unfiltered recently, to discuss intelligent design and evolution.
Collins, who is a Christian as well as a geneticist, said this here very interesting thing about intelligent design:
I think intelligent design sets up a god of the gaps kind of scenario. … [W]e haven't yet explained this particular feature of evolution, so god must be right there. If science ultimately proves that those gaps aren't gaps, after all, then where is god? We really ought not to ask people to do that.
I've said this before. Many Christians would state that if science can't currently find a natural cause for a certain phenomenon, the only possible explanation must be supernatural—that is, God. Any gaps in our knowledge must be filled with God—hence, “God of the gaps.”
Yet, as Collins points out, that view limits a Christian's conception of God—for as natural explanations emerge, there's less need for supernatural ones.
A more logical stance for a Christian might be to say, well, all things in the natural world have a natural explanation, and we'll eventually understand most of those explanations, but we still hold that, ultimately, God is the power behind it all—and the ways in which God moves Creation remain among the great mysteries of our faith.
That is actually where Collins stands:
I'm what's called a theistic evolutionist. I believe god had a purpose that involved you and me as individuals, people that he wished to have fellowship with. I believe that the way he decided to do that creative step utilized the mechanism of evolution.
Now, I personally don't think God had anything to do with any of it, but I at least respect the consistency and rationality of Collins's faith. I'll end with this—a beautiful statement of faith by Francis Collins:
I do think that a thinking person can both be one who believes that science, rigorous science, is the way to understand the natural world and that god is the way to understand the spiritual world. And when you marry the two together, as I get to do, your appreciation of science, of a new discovery, takes on a new meaning because it's a glimpse of what god knew all along and at that moment it's a moment of worship.
[via Panda's Thumb]
Stars vs. genes
This is rich. Via the Panda's Thumb comes word of Benevolent Design, a website dedicated to using astrology to prove the concept of intelligent design.
Although the site might be an elaborate hoax, commenters at Panda's Thumb point to the books offered for sale by the Magi Society (the organization behind Benevolent Design) as proof that the site owners are sincere.
Don't let the site's tagline (“EVOLUTION THEORY IS A MONUMENTAL HOAX”) fool you, though. Benevolent Design seeks not merely to throw over Darwinian evolution but virtually all of genetics as well:
There is definitely truth to some theories in genetics. For example, genes have a bearing on us in matters such as the color of our hair and eyes, our blood type, skin color, and many other such physical ways. But at the Magi Society, we have learned through Magi Astrology with certainty that astrology is more powerful than genetics in shaping exactly who we are. Our natal charts have a much more powerful and deeper influence on us than our genes.
I'm amused by some of the other claims of Magi Astrology. For example, Magi Astrology explains why some people and companies are successful (financially or romatically) and others are unsuccessful. Here, the Magi astrologers analyze two celebrity marriages, the stock failure of AOL Time Warner, and the Marlins/Yankees World Series.
Of particular note here is the analysis of two celebrity marriages: The “Heartbreak Marriage” of Liza Minnelli and David Gest and the “Cinderella Marriage” of Lance Armstrong and Kristin Richard. Lance, apparently, owes his successes in marriage and cycling to his marriage chart. Let's look at the Magis proof claims:
…On the day Lance Armstrong married Kristin Richard, three of the four Financial Planets were each making aspects to each other. …
…This type of alignment is called Planetary Synchronization and this concept was first introduced in our first book, and discussed in each of our other books. …
…In the case of the Armstrong Marriage Chart, the Planetary Synchronization of Chiron, Venus and Neptune would mean a Cinderella (Chiron plus Venus equals Cinderella) through ENDURANCE. (Neptune rules endurance in Magi Astrology and you need extraordinary endurance to win the Tour de France, an event that lasts about a month.)
Where Are They Now? Well, Lance is still winning races, that's for sure. But Lance and Kristin split up in February 2003 and divorced in September of the same year. Lance is now porking Sheryl Crow.
What I can't figure out about the Magis is that they wrote this pithy analysis of Lance and Kristen in December 2003, after the couple had filed to end their “Cinderella Marriage.” What happens to your astrology when the prince and the chambermaid fail to live happily ever after?
Regarding incorruptibility
Yesterday, I pointed to a 1998 letter, printed in the Catholic magazine This Rock, from a Michael Dietsch in South Berwick, Maine. That Michael Dietsch discusses a couple of 1998 articles from This Rock debunking Darwinian evolution.
Dietsch also mentions an article by Phillip Johnson from First Things magazine, in which Johnson writes that accepting evolution as fact requires an a priori commitment to materialist thinking. (It's worth pointing out now that Phillip Johnson is an advisor to the Discovery Institute, the Seattle organization that's so active in promoting the concept of Intelligent Design, which, of course, requires an a priori commitment to religious thinking.)
So Dietsch then writes:
The only issue remaining is proof of the supernatural world, which is proof that materialism is nothing more than an unfounded philosophical assumption. This is where the incorruptibles come in. Look at St. Catherine Labouré, for example. She died in 1876, and her body has remained entirely incorrupt for the last 122 years. St. Bernadette Soubirous is a similar case. She died in 1879, and her body has remained incorrupt for the last 119 years. Ask any materialist for a purely natural, material explanation of these phenomena, then stand back and watch him stuttering because of a loss of words.”
South Berwick's Michael Dietsch would have you believe that the clear supernatural origins of these incorruptibles render moot any claim that the world is bounded solely by natural, material forces. These incorruptibles are said to be saints preserved by their lingering connection with the Holy Spirit. For these claims to be true, however, you have to demonstrate a couple of truths:
- No natural explanation could ever possibly explain their preservation.
- No non-saintly being anywhere is so preserved.
I decided to do a little digging. I didn't find much on Google—a few articles about moral incorruptibility, a few Catholic websites that laud these incorruptible saints as miraculous without critically examining the claims, and a bunch of French-language hits. I did find a couple of interesting articles, though, including Saints Preserve Us and Incorruptibility: Miracle or Myth?.
I learned from these articles that Dietsch was mentioning only two of many incorruptible saints, and I also learned that historians and scientists generally accept that these bodies are indeed those of the saints in question—that is, these aren't hoaxes as I initially suspected.
The Church, apparently, takes no official position on the incorruptibility of saints' relics. As the Fortean Times piece points out, church “authorities, quite sensibly, are more interested in the person's virtue.” And, in fact, not all who are preserved are saintly, or even, in fact Catholic. Fortean Times points to a cardinal who collaborated with Mussolini and also to Hindu and Buddhist clerics whose bodies are revered.
Dietsch's Saint Bernadette, it turns out, had her face coated in wax after her second exhumation, and her body sealed in an air-tight glass coffin. Seal me in wax and bury me in an air-tight coffin, and I'm likely to stand up for decades too.
Finally, these are saints, and Catholics have a history of revering their relics. Such veneration requires Catholics to keep close tabs on the remains. How can we know for certain the rate of decay of the millions of bodies that aren't so revered? Decomposition depends on burial conditions such as the airtightness of the coffin and vault; the presence of insects, water, and microbes in the soil; and various other factors. Dig up a few dead Jews or Protestants and see what they look like. Among millions, you're statistically likely to find some that haven't decayed much after decades of burial.
“The only explanation is supernatural,” Dietsch claims. I'll admit, it doesn't appear that scientists can fully explain why some of these remains are undecayed. But Dietsch has fallen for the same fallacy that Phillip Johnson and his fellows at the Discovery Institute like to preach: If science can't fully explain something right now, the only possible answer is, “God did it, so science, you just shut your piehole and look pretty.”
Don't think twice, it's all right
Lemme bang on about this some more. Ben Fulton, writing for the Salt Lake City Weekly, discusses the teaching of so-called intelligent design in public schools. He makes the same point that I've made: Shutting off scientific inquiry by saying God (or a god or gods or alien beings or pink unicorns) is harmful to the human mind. An excerpt:
Just imagine that, for every question you presented to someone in power, they answered with the words, “We don't really know. It's a mystery.” Now imagine if you or your child asked a question about the origin of the human species in a science class, only to have a learned instructor tell you, “We don't really know. It's a mystery.” Would anyone dare call that education?
Lest you think that Fulton's “We don't really know; it's a mystery” is exaggerating the viewpoint of intelligent-design proponents, here's a quote from the Newsweek article that Fulton references:
But I.D. has nothing to say on the identity of the designer or how he gets inside the cell to do his work. Does he create new species directly, or meddle with the DNA of living creatures? … Meyer's view is simply that “we don't know.” He declines even to offer an opinion on whether people are descended from apes, on the ground that it's not his specialty. The diversity of life, in his view, is a “mystery” we may never solve.
“Meyer” is Stephen Meyer, director for the Center of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, an organization that funds the marketing, if you will, of intelligent design. So yes, Fulton is right. Intelligent design would teach kids that we don't understand the diversity of life, and we may never understand it.
Let me reiterate a point I've made before, using my favorite analogy. Nicolas Copernicus demonstrated that Earth orbits the Sun, but it's unlikely that Copernicus had much understanding of the nuclear forces that fuel stars such as our Sun. In the year 1500, it might have been reasonable to tell Nick that the source of the Sun's energy was a mystery that we might never understand. But is that education?
However, this analogy is inaccurate, for it implies that we know little more, today, about the origins of life than Copernicus did, 500 years ago, about fusion reactions. This is untrue. Despite Meyer's talk of “mysteries,” scientists today do understand the origins of the diversity of life. The unwillingness of IDers to accept Darwinian natural selection is no reason to deny students access to modern biology.
[via The Panda's Thumb]
Sad news
This obituary, by Carol Kaesuk Yoon, is a great look at Mayr's accomplishments in evolutionary biology and ornithology. I read his book, What Evolution Is, about a year ago. It's an excellent overview of evolution and natural selection. People more familiar with the literature than I am say it's among the best introductory texts on the subject.
Further, you just gotta admire a man who not only lives to 100 but continues to work and write. His What Makes Biology Unique was published last year by Cambridge University Press.
Mayr also served as an early mentor for the UCLA geographer and physiologist Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
Theory, misunderstood again
A Pennsylvania school district is the first in the nation to approve the teaching of intelligent design, also known as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”
The district's website states: “Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered.”
Again, we see complete disregard for what a theory means. The district's board members seem to feel that anything that's a “theory” is unproven and therefore open to question.
But you know what else is a theory? Atomic theory, but let this school board tell the people of Hiroshima that atomic power is “just a theory.”
Continental drift is a theory, as is its cousin, plate tectonics, so I hope the board members will call up all their friends in California and tell them to suspend belief in earthquakes until more facts come in.
And oh my goodness! Has anyone ever seen an electron? Electrical theory posits that they exist, but no one's seen one, so I guess electrical theory isn't a fact, either. Scientists might pretend that electricity is responsible for getting this message in front of your eyes, but they clearly don't have all the facts, so let's not believe them until we know more.
Theory, expanded
So, let's recall our definitions.
Merriam-Webster says that a theory is “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena”.
How does evolutionary theory fit this bill? It provides a body of principles to explain the phenomena related to the origin and diversification of life. Scientists generally affirm these principles, even though some disagree on certain details—such as punctuated equilibrium.
AHD, 4E expands on M-W: Evolution is a “set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” The first part, up to the comma, I've already covered: Evolutionary theory is a set of principles, widely accepted by scientists, that explains a group of phenomena related to the origins and diversification of life. But AHD offers two points that M-W misses: repeated testing and predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution has been repeatedly tested. Take just one example: bacterial resistance to antibiotics. We know that certain diseases are now harder to treat with drugs because the bacteria that cause those diseases have evolved defenses against antibiotics.
Evolutionary theory makes predictions about natural phenomena. Using evolutionary theories, scientists can make predictions about certain species might evolve to adapt to their environments. For example, evolutionary theory predicts that an organism in a rapidly changing environment should have higher mutation rates.
So, to recap, evolution is a theory. It provides generally accepted and scientifically plausible principles to explain how life arose on Earth and how it attained its present diversity. Evolutionary theory makes predictions that scientists can test through observation and experimentation.
A theory is not an intuition, a guess, or a hunch. The theory of evolution is not four teenagers and a dog riding around in a van chasing men dressed like ghosts because Velma had a “theory” about Old Mr. Scruggs. Dismissing evolution as “just” a theory shows a dramatic misunderstanding of what a theory is.
See also “Evolution is only a theory,” at EvoWiki.org.
Theory, misunderstood
Yahoo! News - Georgia Evolution Case Heads to Court
ATLANTA - School officials in suburban Cobb County go to court Monday to defend themselves against a lawsuit accusing the district of promoting religion by requiring that science textbooks warn students evolution is “a theory, not a fact.”
Theory, defined
M-W Online: 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
AHD, 4E: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Gleick critiques Newton exhibit
James Gleick, author of a recent biography of Sir Isaac Newton, critiques the NYPL's new exhibit, The Newtonian Moment.
I saw this exhibit during its opening weekend, and to my embarrassment, what struck me most is how little I actually know about Newton's life and work. I don't think I've studied anything about him since high school, to be honest, aside from perhaps a brief mention in a college history course. Gleick's bio might be a good jumping-off point.
World's greatest invention?
Wired News profiles TV-B-Gone, a new invention by Mitch Altman that can remotely turn off just about any television.
This sounds like the coolest thing ever. I hate being at the DMV, in a jury waiting room, or on a bus and having to put up with inane television programs just because other people are too stupid to bring along their own entertainment. If I'm going to be sitting on my ass in some place that's inherently boring, I'll bring a book and some music. It's a simple concept, and I don't need my reading interrupted by canned laughter from a syndicated episode of Everybody Fucking Loves Raymond.
Republicans sideline Reeve bill
Days after the death of Christopher Reeve, Senate Republicans have sidelined a bill intended to further paralysis research, LA Weekly reports. Why? Cowardly posthumous political retaliation against Reeve for supporting stem-cell research.
Remembering Superman
"The best tribute we can pay to Reeve the medical research campaigner is to remember the enormous number of debilitating medical conditions that lack a celebrity figurehead, and make the case for unimpeded medical research as an unqualified good."
Cremation justification
Multimedia site showing what happens during decomposition. Just incinerate me, please.
Drinking makes you smart!
A study conducted by researchers at University College London has found that moderate alcohol consumption increases cognitive function. From the abstract:
Of people who reported drinking alcohol in the past year, those who consumed at least one drink in the past week, compared with those who did not, were significantly less likely to have poor cognitive function. The beneficial effect extended to those drinking more than 240 g per week (approximately 30 drinks).
...
The authors concluded that for middle-aged subjects, increasing levels of alcohol consumption were associated with better function regarding some aspects of cognition. Nonetheless, it is not proposed that these findings be used to encourage increased alcohol consumption.
Rats.
Solar boat to sail through space
The Planetary Society hopes to launch a solar-powered space ship this year, propelled by solar rays striking large sails. Solar sails, long a component of science fiction, should allow scientists to save money by avoiding the need for rocket fuel.
The mission, sponsored by Cosmos Studios, is designed as a test of concept--to prove that solar sails can work as a means of propulsion.
Cosmos Studios is the baby of Ann Druyan, wife of the late science-popularizer Carl Sagan, a hero of mine. Sagan urged the Planetary Society, and other private organizations, to fund spaceflight research and stop relying on government agencies to launch spacecraft. This long-delayed flight, if it proves successful, will finally fulfill a dream of Sagan's and take humanity one step closer to the stars.
American anti-intellectualism
Or, why are we so proud to be so dumb?
Two writers discuss the anti-intellectual tide in American culture. First, Lawrence M. Krauss discusses science education with Claudia Dreifus of Scientific American magazine.
Kraus makes two points that I find significant:
We live in a society where it's considered okay for intelligent people to be scientifically illiterate. Now, it wasn't always that way. At the beginning of the 20th century, you could not be considered an intellectual unless you could discuss the key scientific issues of the day. Today you can pick up an important intellectual magazine and find a write-up of a science book with a reviewer unashamedly saying, "This was fascinating. I didn't understand it." If they were reviewing a work by John Kenneth Galbraith, they wouldn't flaunt their ignorance of economics.
Why is this a problem? Because the more ignorant Americans are about science, the easier it becomes for politicians to distort science to their own ends. Krauss continues:
Because we're living in a time when so many scientific questions are transformed into public relations campaigns--with truth going out the window in favor of sound bites and manufactured controversies. This is dangerous to science and society, because what we learn from observation and testing can't be subject to negotiation or spin, as so much in politics is.
The creationists cut at the very credibility of science when they cast doubt on our methods. When they do that, they make it easier to distort scientific findings in controversial policy areas. We can see that happening right now with issues like stem cells, abortion, global warming and missile defense. When the testing of the proposed missile defense system showed it didn't work, the Pentagon's answer, more or less, went, "No more tests before we build it."
Next, Henry Louis Gates Jr., discusses black anti-intellectualism in aguest column for the New York Times. He reports on a conversation with Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois. Obama told Gates:
Americans suffer from anti-intellectualism, starting in the White House. Our people can least afford to be anti-intellectual.
I'll never fully understand the problem of anti-intellectualism among black Americans (for that matter, I'll never understand why anyone is willfully dumb, no matter their ethnicity or country of origin), but it seems to me part of a larger societal problem affecting all Americans--from, as Obama points out, a White House that seems to scorn intellect, to a popular culture that mocks as nerds everyone from scientists and mathematicians to music theorists and political scientists.
Understanding Evolution
One thing I've picked up from indexing education journals is that publications aimed at teachers often provide good backgrounders on complex topics. These backgrounders present complicated information in concise and understandable formats, without oversimplifying the topic.
Understanding Evolution: An Evolution Website for Teachers is such a backgrounder. It provides guides for both learning and teaching evolution, including an explanation of scientific methods, the mechanisms of evolution, evidence to support evolutionary theories, and misconceptions about evolution.
There's even a section that helps educators overcome roadblocks they face when teaching evolution. This section would also help lay readers understand and counter some of the objections that some have toward evolution.
I hope to read this thoroughly when I have a chance.
Priorities out of wack
Here's an idea: Let's cut funding to Hubble, which is still doing good science, so we can maybe send a guy to Mars by 2045.
In the light of evolution
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky.
"The distinguished American philosopher Daniel Dennett has credited Darwin with the greatest idea ever to occur to a human mind. This was natural selection, the survival of the fittest, of course, and I would include sexual selection as part of the same idea. But Darwin was not only a deep thinker, he was a naturalist of encyclopaedic knowledge and (which by no means necessarily follows) the ability to hold it in his head and deploy it in constructive directions." -- Richard Dawkins.
February 12, 1809
Happy birthday to you
You live in a zoo.
You descended from a monkey,
And you smell like one too.
"Evolution" removed from Georgia's science standards
A proposed biology curriculum for the State of Georgia removes the word evolution, replacing it with biological change over time. The New York Times also reports that the curriculum fudges on the age of Earth, removing the word long from the phrase long history of the Earth. Some see this as a sop to creationists, many of whom believe Earth to be a mere four to eight thousand years old.
The state's schools superintendent, Kathy Cox, said in a news conference Thursday that the word evolution causes "a lot of negative reaction" and distracts people from the ideas being taught. Cox argues that people get so worked up about the "monkeys-to-man thing" that they lose sight of the larger ideas of evolution. Cox states that textbooks may still use the word evolution, and that teachers will still be able to use it and to teach related concepts.
Some teachers and scientists, however, oppose the changes, arguing they will provide teachers an excuse for glossing over evolutionary concepts; this, they say, will weaken biology teaching in the state and hinder students who go on to study biology in college.
These changes, though, are part of an ongoing process to overhaul Georgia's curriculum, and they could be overturned or modified with enough public support.
More:
Forgetting Darwin: Georgia's proposed science curriculum protects children from the "e' word
Georgia may shun 'evolution' in schools
Cox: 'Evolution' a negative buzzword
Science benchmarks from American Association for the Advancement of Science
Inside Google
Fast Company: How Google Grows...and Grows...and Grows. If it takes too long to deliver results or an additional word of text on the home page is too distracting, Google risks losing people's attention. If the search results are lousy, or if they are compromised by advertising, it risks losing people's trust. Attention and trust are sacrosanct. [Tomalak's Realm]
Peek inside Google.
...and to think that I blogged it on Newberry Street
Free Wireless on Newberry Street. A computer reseller in Boston sets up a wireless network that gives denizens of cafés and bookstores in the vicinity free access to the Internet -- as long as they don't mind viewing an occasional pop-up ad. By Leander Kahney. [Wired News]
Boston's Newberry Street is one of my favorite places in the U.S. Now I like it even better. I'd put up with an occasional pop-up (I guess depending on how occasional) for the benefit of free Wi-Fi.
Nifty idea.
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Journals, records and some images from the Apollo lunar missions. [MetaFilter]
Neat. Photos, movies (in QuickTime format), PDFs of the mission reports, commentaries by the astronauts involved. Very nice work.
Quantum Computing
Harnessing Atoms to Create Superfast Computers. George Johnson's book makes the arcane topic of quantum computing accessible and understandable. By Ian Foster. [New York Times: Technology]
This looks like one for the Amazon wishlist. Hint hint hint...
I wish I had a TiVo. Le sigh....
TiVo: The Rise of 'God's Machine'. Personal video recorders like TiVo and Sonicblue's ReplayTV are here to stay. Media companies would do well to work with them -- and with consumers -- rather than against them. A commentary by Lauren Weinstein. [Wired News]
Some good commentary here.
Neuroscience of Suicide
Scientific American has a well-written and informative article about brain research into the causes of suicidal behavior. Researchers seem closer and closer to determining the neurological causes and possibly developing new treatments to prevent suicide.
Women and computer science
Where the Girls Aren't. Computer science has become the new math -- boys only. Is it nature or conditioning? By Karen Stabiner. [New York Times: Technology]
Mac Loyalists: Don't Tread
Mac Loyalists: Don't Tread on Us. Mac users are famously loyal. No matter how much Apple upsets users, they stick with it. But why? Experts in psychology, marketing and cults provide answers. Part one in a series by Leander Kahney. [Wired News]
I loves me Mac, but this is a bizarre fuckin' article.
Curse the sun! It burns! It burns!
Some amazing science images released today: The first shows a supernova, as captured by the Hubble Space Telescope. The supernova is located in the constellation Cassiopeia, some 10,000 light years away. The beautiful oranges, greens, reds, and blues each highlight different chemical processes. The link offers the image in different formats and at different resolutions, allowing you to choose how the level of detail at which to view the image. Other amazing Hubble images are available as well.
Closer to home, the SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) project captured an image showing a huge plasma cloud poking out from the surface of the sun. In its description of the cloud [note: this is a volatile link: content will change on July 8], SOHO states that this huge cloud extends at least 30 Earths from the sun's surface. Think about that for a moment. 30 times the diameter of the Earth....
Have a peek through SOHO's archives, while you're there. Scientists can use the Observatory to view light from the Sun's at varying frequencies, to study different aspects of its behavior. You might recall from high-school science that when the frequency of light changes, its color on the spectrum changes as well. What makes that cool for us is that it provides us images like these:
SETI survey
Here's an intriguing little survey, from the folks at the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.
More funk and science
I'm back, sans girlfriend. Sigh
But enough moping. Here's something to restore your faith in the universe: a so-called Sombrero Galaxy, courtesy NASA.
Seriously, though, when I'm sad or depressed, comtemplating the beauty of the natural world helps me heal. I take a lot of hits for being an atheist, but when it really comes right down to it, I love this world and this universe at least as much as most believers do. The only difference is my thoughts about its origins. People think my outlook cheapens the natural world somehow, but that could not possibly be farther from the truth.
Jesus, Sagan, and the Cosmos
I purchased the Cosmos DVD set last week. Owning this wondrous series on DVD is a bit of a dream for me, but I have to give a bit of history to explain why.
Cosmos first aired on PBS in 1980. The series quickly won critical acclaim but more fortuitously, it premiered during an actor's strike that temporarily crippled the broadcast networks (this, in days before cable had reached most U.S. households). Cosmos quickly became one the most popular programs ever to air on PBS. I can't recall when I first saw it. I believe it must have been during one of the many repeated broadcasts of Cosmos. My copy of Carl Sagan's companion hardcover dates to Christmas 1983, and I know I requested the book because of my deep love for the series, so I saw it sometime between my eleventh and fourteenth birthdays.
Sagan's clear love of science, his eloquence, and the high production values of the program captivated me. (Cosmos employed some of the special effects artists from the Star Wars films.) Sagan expressed complex scientific ideas such as evolution and the origins of stars in clear, concise, down-to-earth language that was both clear to grasp and, in retrospect, poetic. Sagan did not merely educate, he inspired. Pay attention when some young Turk scientist explains a breakthrough in physics or astronomy; quite often if asked for her inspiration, she'll be quick to cite Sagan and Cosmos.
In watching the first episode again Sunday night, I was surprised at how lucid and energized Sagan seemed. His sense of wonder and awe permeate this series and I quickly felt myself transported back to those days when I would race upstairs to watch Cosmos on the old TV in my mom's bedroom. If I missed a single episode, it sure as hell wasn't my idea; my passion and excitement for it were boundless. I vividly recall being overwhelmed by the sheer immensity of the universe ("Our own galaxy takes a quarter billion years to make a single rotation?") and brimming with admiration for the ingenuity and genius of the scientists who uncovered the mysteries and secrets of our origins.
Cosmos was also my first real introduction to the idea of life on other planets. Now, when you read that, you might think I'm nuts. How could I have missed Star Wars? Star Trek? The Day the Earth Stood Still? Of course I was immersed in science-fiction as a child, but I knew instinctively that most science-fiction was mere fantasy. Cosmos, however, was my first inkling that there was a scientific likelihood of intelligent alien life. As Sagan explains, in a universe with ten billion trillion stars, what are the chances that ours is the only one with an inhabited planet?
But Sagan didn't stop at astronomy or physics. Cosmos was significant for another fact: It rather brilliantly explained the philosophy of science and the methods of scientific inquiry. By explaining how scientists such as Eratosthenes and Aristotle, Democritus and Darwin reached their conclusions, Sagan opened my eyes to the wonder of science and the possibilities of human inquiry. These men and women weren't handed revelation in a book or burning bush; they realized and understood the universe through their own ingenuity and determination.
And this leads to the other great understanding I owe to Carl Sagan, one I sadly forgot during my inane slide into religiosity: We are not here by design. This Earth and its inhabitants are the product of a wondrous cosmic randomness, a toss of the dice. We exist because a chance collection of molecules and organic matter coalesced into life, billions of years ago, and eventually evolved into sequoia and elk and herons and humans.
In my imagination, the notion that everyone I love, everyone I admire, and every beautiful thing I've ever seen is a cosmic accident is far more wondrous and awe-inspiring than the concept that it was all carefully designed. Understanding how hydrogen and other gases ignite into baby stars, how amino acids form into proteins, and how simple mechanisms for detecting light evolve over millennia into the human eye are far more satisfying to me than reading "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
Knowing this also teaches me that the universe didn't come into being for the sake of humanity, as some religions teach. We're merely a happy accident. This world, this galaxy--they are not our playthings. Understanding this, I hope, inspires humility and a desire to walk lightly.
I owe all this to Carl Sagan and Cosmos. Virtually all I know about human origins and the births of stars I can trace back to the wonder and fascination with learning that Dr. Sagan inspired. To call Sagan a hero would diminish the regard in which I hold him. And yet, please don't misunderstand. Sagan opened a door and lit a path. I don't believe for a moment he paved that path. What I owe to Dr. Sagan is the debt of inquiry, the desire to study Richard Dawkins and his explanations of Darwin's theories, Timothy Ferris and his apt explanations of cosmology, Richard Rhodes and his accounts of the harnessing of atomic power, and Eileen Welsome and the dangers of scientific abuse.
To me, Cosmos is a lamp, a teacher, and a guidebook, and Sagan a mentor. His contributions to science education are, I believe, immeasurable. Perhaps now you understand why, when I watched the first episode again Sunday evening and recalled the many ways it has inspired me, I actually wept.
Powers of 10
Molecular Expressions: Science, Optics and You - Powers Of 10: Interactive Java Tutorial
This nifty little applet starts at the edge of the galaxy and zooms closer and closer, until reaching the subatomic particles that make up a leaf.
Bad science
Arts and Letters Daily had an interesting link this morning to a review of two new books about bad science--anything from cold fusion to N-rays to astrology and homeopathy. The review gave both books favorable marks, which intrigues me all the more. Both books are available in the U.S., so I might have to check out one or both when I finish the backlog of books I'm currently working through.