Carnivalia and an open thread

Talk about whatever you want right here.

Does this thing on my elbow look like cancer to you?

Does this thing on my elbow look like cancer to you?

As my husband, the pathologist, would say, "Just cut it off, and I'll take a look at it for you."

Does this thing on my elbow look like cancer to you?

Have something to drink. You'll forget about it.

~Does this thing on my elbow look like cancer to you?~

A topical application of thermite should resolve the issue.

I judged a middle-school science fair this morning, and it was so much fun. There was this 7th grade boy who did an "informational display" (they're allowed to choose either experiment or informational until 8th grade) on heart anatomy and function. He had a cow heart there along with extra gloves so anyone who wanted to could handle it, and I swear, I have never seen anyone younger than a grad student get that excited about anatomy. He loveslovesloves it, and got that dreamy look in his eyes when he started talking about the human body and how it works. He was all bummed that the butcher cut off the top of the atria on his heart, but showed me the blood flow, and had it all in diagrams, and had information about animals with different numbers of chambers in the heart, and fielded every question I asked him about physiology, and even knew deoxygenated blood isn't blue, which some adults I know would still get wrong. Another kid came up during his presentation to me and started asking kind of dumb questions, and he was able to nicely correct the other kid and get back to me without getting flustered. For a simple display, I have to say I was impressed. The kid rocked. Made me hopeful for humanity, it did.

Yes, if the issue Mr. Brownian has is life or the desire for an open-casket funeral. If they aren't burned out of their residences, the neighbors will be treated to the smell of roasted pork until the coroner arrives.

Mmm...thermite reactions...they look neat but burn like concentrated stupid and are as hard to extinguish.

Susan Jacoby: A nation of dunces

Never mind. Turns out it was a glob of marmalade.

Never mind. Turns out it was a glob of marmalade.

Too much karaoke last night?

Marmalade, I like marmalade...

Carlie, it really is heartwarming to see kids jump into science with enthusiasm like that. Through operant conditioning, my kids have learned that one way to get a big smile and "high five" out of me is to tell me what they learned in biology class. So they talk about biology and evolution. A lot.

Thursday my daughter told me about winning the daily science trivia contest (again) by correctly identifying cnidiara as the phylum to which jellyfish belong. It wasn't what they had studied, but she learned it from reading my blog.

She told me that meeting PZ and his tour of the lab was one of the things that boosted her interested in biology.

Friday, my son talked to me and explained to me how he had read ahead in the evolution section of his biology book (200 pages ahead!) and he described to me how resistance to anti-biotics works. He had it right, but had trouble with some of the pronunciations.

My kids aren't much for sports, but they sure make me proud in their interest in science.

Never mind. Turns out it was a glob of marmalade.

I'm surprised you could tell, much less type, after the thermite.

I'm surprised you could tell, much less type, after the thermite.

Hello-o-o? I'm Brownian, as in Brownian Motion.

The movement of molecules, no matter the velocity, is but children at play to me.

"Does this thing on my elbow look like cancer to you?"

I don't know, try some homeopathy. It couldn't make it worse.

Right, he must of used homeopathic thermite.

Right, he must of used homeopathic thermite.

"Homeopathic thermite"? Is that what they're calling cold fusion these days?

The Mike Dunn/Proteomics/Han et al. Korean wacko paper scandal seems to have sunk without a trace.

Dunn and the journal have some explaining to do and it doesn't look like we are going to get it.

No doubt the retracted paper had major problems. The question is how did it make it through multiple layers of review and almost get published. The title along was enough to make anyone awake notice that something was odd.

Does this thing on my elbow look like cancer to you?

No, but it does bare a striking resemblance to the Virgin Mary. You should exorcise...er...excise it and sell it on e-Bay.

Carlie, Your post is the perfect antidote to the all-too-real religious indoctrination video also posted today.

And you summed it up perfectly too;

"Made me hopeful for humanity, it did."

Imagine if the bright youngster so in love with science was a working class red neck from the American South or a Muslim.

The best of the best, no need to wade through YouTube...

http://lnmc.blogspot.com

Mike Haubrich, I see that you clearly advocate indoctrinating your innocent children, you indoctrinator.

Yabut, everybody indoctrinates children.

The question is how and to what ends.

How does a scientist account for the dramatic difference in content between your "scientific" methodology/indoctrination. and the "religious" methodology/indoctrination?

Both are clearly operant conditioning.

Don't you know that Skinner and his scientific behaviorism are passe.

Haven't you genuflected to the "cognitive revolution" where thoughts and "new ideas"
and "new values" are generated like the spontaneous generation of maggots.

Don't tell me that the "spontaneous generation of maggots" has been disproven by experiment because that would be similar to the anti-Freudians who say that Freud's flights of fancy have been so falsified and disproven that both Freud & psychoanalysis are considered a hilarious farce by pompous science types.

Why do you keep practicing this very dated, but apparently successful, "behaviorism"?

BTW, there is a new musical phenom in our midst.
If you haven't seen Gustavo Dudamel yet run, don't walk to YouTube and watch him in action.
http://www.gustavodudamel.com
He was just hired as Maestro for the Los Angeles Symphony. Watch the orchestra as he conducts, it's stunning.

Don't tell me that the "spontaneous generation of maggots" has been disproven by experiment because that would be similar to the anti-Freudians who say that Freud's flights of fancy have been so falsified and disproven that both Freud & psychoanalysis are considered a hilarious farce by pompous science types.

Gerry, you fucking twit. Oh. and gerry, we just had a creationist stop by this blog today and accused us of not having the guts to criticize islam. Thought you would get a laugh out of the.

Ha! I've been spezio'd! Must....resist....temptation....to....respond!

Couldn't do it. Crap.

Gerald. You are a mental wreck and after having your ass handed to you by MAJeff you are onto other targets to see who will take the bait.

No one cares what you think about framing, what you think about MAJeff's teaching philosophy or what you think on the broad spectrum of the field of psychology.

I am not insulted if you want to question my gender. I admire women (in more ways than one, btw.) So, have at it. Say what you will to try to egg me on, and I will properly ignore it from here on out.

Hey, that felt kind of good.

Don't tell me that the "spontaneous generation of maggots" has been disproven by experiment because that would be similar to the anti-Freudians who say that Freud's flights of fancy have been so falsified and disproven that both Freud & psychoanalysis are considered a hilarious farce by pompous science types.

The hypothesis of spontaneous generation of maggots was disproved when an Italian scientist some 2 to 3 centuries ago covered a flask of spoiled meat with cheesecloth, and compared it to another flask with an identical amount of spoiled meat, but was left uncovered. Upon later examination, there were fly eggs on the meat inside of the uncovered flask, and fly eggs on the cheesecloth of the covered flask, thereby proving that maggots came from fly eggs, and were not spontaneously generated by rotting meat.

And if you actually knew how to read, you would know that most of the criticism of Freud stem from his over-emphasis on sexuality, to the point of excluding or ignoring other factors.

I am not insulted if you want to question my gender. I admire women (in more ways than one, btw.) So, have at it. Say what you will to try to egg me on, and I will properly ignore it from here on out.

I think there are far more productive ways of inducing ovulation, Mike.

Mike Haubrich, I see that you clearly advocate indoctrinating your innocent children, you indoctrinator.

*sigh*

every day now.

I think it's time to waive bye-bye to gerky spazoid.

hey spaz:

take a hike; go get a thicker skin, and come back later (MUCH) when you have something worthwhile to say.

Hey, that felt kind of good.

See.....

most of the criticism of Freud stem from his over-emphasis on sexuality, to the point of excluding or ignoring other factors.

His methods of treatment aren't much used in their original form, but let's not ignore the fact that many of the phenomena he documented are still recognized and treated for, several of his hypotheses are still of interest to modern psychologists, and much of the terminology he coined is still in use to this day, or has been co-opted for more modern usages.

controversy surrounding many of his hypotheses still continues to this day, and many of his original ideas haven't even been tested until fairly recently.

a very brief glimpse of what I mean:

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/03/sigmund-freud-and-unconscious-mental.p…

...btw, since the concept of cognitive dissonance (as applied to creobots) has been raised on many occasions hereabouts, there is also a nice little blurb on that site documenting a bit of the history of the seminal study on that:

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/how-and-why-we-lie-to-ourselves.php

think about it the next time a creobot comes in here and obviously "lies" about evolution, the bible, and whatever have you in order to support their contentions.

People will interpret the same information in radically different ways to support their own views of the world. When deciding our view on a contentious point, we conveniently forget what jars with our own theory and remember everything that fits.

sound familiar?

Ok, show of hands time--

How many of you commenting on Freud actually have any training in psychology?

I do... oddly enough, I am a (living, breathing) behaviorist.

Remember--the most highly trained expert, speaking outside of his/her field, is just another amateur. I would never dare comment on physics, or biology, or chemistry... ok, I probably would, actually. We humans have high opinions of our opinions.

Remember--the most highly trained expert, speaking outside of his/her field, is just another amateur.

That's why I resolutely refuse to become highly trained or expert in anything.

How many of you commenting on Freud actually have any training in psychology?

raises hand.

1 year basic psych, 1 year advanced pysch tailored to studying animal behavior.

did you have a point?

@#33--Did I have a point?

Why, yes, of course... My point is simply that I need not take your comments on Freud as expert opinion. Your view may well be worthwhile, of course...

Please, Ichthyic, do not forget that your link in #29 asks us to travel to the 19th century. I doubt that you would accept as "expert" very many opinions that ask you to accept the same century as applicable to modern science.

Of course Freud's terminology is still used. Science, like evolution, builds on what has been left to us from the past. Psychology is particularly ridden with prescientific vocabulary. That does not mean that there is no science there.

I would hope you would not take my word on physics, biology, or chemistry. "A little learning is a dangerous thing", as Pope would tell us. I admire your comments here very much. But... sorry, you are not an expert in the science of psychology. This should come as no surprise if you are honest, which I accept that you are. Expertise is a narrow thing.

(I am quite impressed that you have a year of animal behavior, though....)

...still missing your point?

or maybe you missed mine.

My point was that Freud's thinking was hardly as worthless as some seem to think.

I doubt that you would accept as "expert" very many opinions that ask you to accept the same century as applicable to modern science.

Oh? would you consider Newton no longer applicable to modern science, because there is relativity?

Besides which, the author of that article was hardly asking you to accept the 19th century as relevant to modern science (whether the specifics being referred to actually are or not). Instead, the author was asking the reader to place the accomplishments of Freud in the time frame in which they were made.

Just like Darwin, Freud was a pioneer in his own time, and, just like Darwin, to really understand his accomplishments, it is best to analyze them in the times they were made. Darwin, for example, hardly had modern genetics available to him when he formulated the hypothesis of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. One could say much of Darwin is entirely irrelevant to the modern ToE, but when looked at in the relevant time frame, we see the genius of what he deduced, and many of his ideas are indeed still quite relevant.

That does not mean that there is no science there.

In fact, I was stating the exact opposite. I'm confused as to why you seem to think otherwise?

If your point is to imply that Freud is no longer looked at relevant at all to modern psychology, I really don't care WHAT your background is, that would be incorrect.

If you wish to actually debate this point, I'm game.

...
My point is simply that I need not take your comments on Freud as expert opinion

if that really IS your point...

1. It's highly irrelevant

2. It's also fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned.

as i said, though, if you wish to clarify your own position on the relevance of Freud, I'm happy to hear it.

(I am quite impressed that you have a year of animal behavior, though....)

again, you misread.

I had a year of advanced pysch tailored to studying animal behavior while a grad student at Berkeley - studied under Steven Glickman (this guy: http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/sglickman.html ).

I've been studying animal behavior for about 20 years now, actually, and have published papers on fish behavior.

I would hope you would not take my word on physics, biology, or chemistry

nobody here takes anybody's word at face value.

However, I do know that in order to get an advanced degree in psychology, you in fact do have to be well versed in biology and chemistry (not so much physics).

so, with that in mind, I hardly would look askance at first glance at commentary on biochemistry or physiology coming from the mouth of someone with a degree in psychology.

I had two psychologists on my advisory committee! somehow, I think they would have skewered me if I said their commentary had no relevance to animal behavior, physiology, or evolutionary biology.

(likely they still would!)

...and tha's all I'm gonna say on this issue unless you really want to clarify your position.

The phrase, "the spontaneous generation of maggots" is one of B. F. Skinner's most classic (& well known) attacks on mentalistic explanations, "appeals to mind", and "inner causes" that purport to pass as science.

Skinner was making an analogy to the spontaneous generation of ideas - ex nihilo.

Skinner clearly states & explains his revulsion against mentalistic concepts, including Plato, in the first two chapters of "About Behaviorism."

I foolishly thought that Mike Haubrich being a committed behaviorist in guiding his own children would get that simple tongue-in-cheek message.

My apologies to you, Sir.

It will not happen again.

Can anybody help me out with a question i can't seem to answer using google alone.

I was watching a BBC documentary which touched on the Red Lady of Paviland, an Upper Paleolithic-era human male skeleton dyed in red ochre found in the Gower.

The bones were dyed with red ochre. I couldn't figure out how you would dye the bones unless you removed the flesh before burial or returned to the cave burial after enough time had passed to skeletonise the corpse.

The latter seemed unlikely, as the climate at that time was arctic desert, which I suspect would mean a long time before skletonisation. But had there been de-fleshing I would have expected to find some reference to characteristic nicks on bones etc. I found plenty of references to red ochre in funerary practice, but the only application technique mentioned was scattering on the body.

I'm probably missing something obvious, but it's bugging me. I'll keep digging, but if anyone happens to know about paleolithic burial practice, that would be a real help.

#40 Don,

I don't know about paleolithic burial practices, but I can tell you how Hawaiians cook pig in an imu. They dig a large hole in the earth and fill it with heated rocks, place the wrapped pig inside and cover with dirt and cook. The flesh will fall off the bones when done.

Hawaiians also removed human flesh by cooking underground as part of burial practices in order to preserve the bones, which were considered sacred. This practice was done up until the coming of the missionaries.

Creationist protestors at a Dawkins appearance:
Don't let Dawkins make a monkey out of you
They're making his point for him. And this:
Prof Dawkins, dubbed the high priest of atheism...Say what? By whom?

I'm probably missing something obvious, but it's bugging me. I'll keep digging, but if anyone happens to know about paleolithic burial practice, that would be a real help.

This is simply a guess, but maybe the bones were naturally "dyed" by the ochre after decomposition?

I liked this comment about the movie Expelled:

I snuck out of the session to see a screening of Ben Stein's new documentary Expelled about the evolution/intelligent design debate. One would have thought it was put out by conservative evangelicals. Stein interviews premiere players in the debate, and poignantly reveals a motivating force. He is a Jew and takes viewers to a German extermination camp for the infirm. Listening to the "museum" guide's perspective on what the Nazis did there was chilling, both for him and, one would hope, for viewers.

christineascheller.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/day-2-3-npc/

[Emphasis added]

What's funny, of course, is that she thinks it a compliment to imply that it's an other-demonizing film of the kind that ignorant evangelicals put out. What's important is also obvious, that it is like a long line of meaningless drivel from ignorant self-righteous folk.

And sorry, Christine, just because they went out and found an idiot-Jew to spout their inanities doesn't remove it from being a propaganda film of evangelicals.

By the way, if "Darwinism" were the persecuting force that you make it out to be, why aren't you showing actual persecution, rather than having to import it from anti-Darwin Nazis and Stalinists? Why don't you show some actual persecution, instead of showing people justly and legally treated like pseudoscientists of any and all religions are treated, and then having to bring up Nazis and Stalinists in order to try to deceive the gullible who you allow to preview your rot?

By the way, I doubt that more than a very few people will be persuaded that the movie rises above the level of the rest that is put out by conservative evangelicals.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

He's still fighting ID well, and still misrepresenting his secular opponents. Francis Collins, that is:

According to Collins, "naturalism has its limits," and "science also requires faith." For example, scientific laws require a certain faith that the world will behave in "certain predictable ways." Collins emphasized, however, that science does not provide us with the right instruments to prove the existence of God because God is outside of nature, contrasting his argument to that of atheist-biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the book The God Delusion. He went so far as to say that such thinking is a "logical pothole," which Dawkins, who is scheduled to speak at Stanford in the near future, has fallen into. Collins cited pointers to God in nature such as the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics," and the precise tuning of physical constants during the Big Bang: if the level of gravity had been one part in 1014 weaker, matter would never have come together again to form the Earth. Examples of such improbability suggest that there is a creator God. To justify a creator God that actually cares about humans, though, requires more than just science. Although he cited examples from C.S. Lewis such as the moral law that is innate to humans and defines what is right and wrong in all cultures, and the inability of evolution to explain selfless acts, Collins reiterated several times that a spiritual act of faith in God transcends logical justifications.

The most controversial part of his speech came, however, when he began to challenge each religious perspective of evolution in an attempt to demonstrate the ability to simultaneously appreciate God and science. To begin, Collins made a surprisingly strong scientific case for the existence of evolution. Showing a chart of the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees, he made it visually clear that the only difference was the very long human chromosome two, compared to that of the chimpanzee. Each chromosome has a very specific sequence at the tip called a telomere; Collins showed that the human chromosome two has a telomere embedded in the middle, evidence that somewhere in the evolutionary process, there had been a fusion. So how can we reconcile faith with this undeniable evolution? Atheism, Collins argued, "takes a position of knowledge we don't really have." If we admit that we know such a tiny amount about the world, how can we know for sure that God doesn't exist? Creationism, on the other hand, should be thought of as St. Augustine explained it: "we shouldn't insist on a particular interpretation because if we find out it is wrong, then we fall with it." Believing the Bible's creation story literally then, according to Collins, is incorrect. When questioned later about the existence of Adam and Eve, he even hesitatingly offered the view that perhaps they were more representative of something that happened across species, since our genetic gene pool suggests that we are actually descended from a group of 10,000 people in Africa.

[Emphasis added]

www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XL/Issue_4/News/news2.shtml

That's some serious tard going there. Who's saying that "we know for sure that God doesn't exist"? Even Dawkins is more careful than that, and I think that he tries to make science say too much about the matter (philosophy is what exposes the resort to god).

What don't you know about the "burden of proof," Collins? You seem to understand it well enough where ID is concerned, but once you're off to the science outside of your specialty, and to your precious preconceptions, you seem not to understand the need of some evidence for your own claims. Fine-tuning and the rest may make you happy, may give you a gap in which to shove your god, but it's only an observation, not something for which your theism provides any sort of "cause and effect" relationship, nor any other demonstrable connection.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

since this is an open thread, does anyone know of a place in the Cleveland area that I can call and have a cheesecake and bottle of dessert wine delivered to a family member?
thanks
j

surprisingly strong scientific case for the existence of evolution

Nicely alliterated, but WTF? Who at Stanford would find a strong scientific case for evolution "surprising"?
Maybe somebody from the Hoover Institute for War, Revolution, and Peace?

controversy surrounding many of his hypotheses still continues to this day, and many of his original ideas haven't even been tested until fairly recently.

The closer you get to humans...

My friend has melanoma on her hear - about 1.5 cm across. Her doctor has recommended surgery, but she feels that is just Western medicine being hasty. She's treating it with naturopathic and homopathic "remedies." Any suggestions for persuading her that this is the medical equivalent of a 3-alarm fire and she should go with the conventional treatment?

One of my coworkers has been looking into melanoma survival studies. I can see what stats he's got on hand when I get to work, Monado.

All the best to you and your friend. Please urge her to have it removed.

More open thread fun. I made a city for Pharyngulites on MyMiniCity. Every time someone clicks the link, a new inhabitant is added to the city. You can view the city any time, but it only adds one to the population once per day per IP address (rollover is at 11:00 PM GMT). Once the city has a large enough population, other links can be clicked to enhance transportation, industry, environment, etc.

I don't see any reason why ours can't be the biggest city in the country, so click daily!

Any suggestions for persuading her that this is the medical equivalent of a 3-alarm fire and she should go with the conventional treatment?

Monado, if your friend is a hard-core altie, there may be no persuading her, I'm sorry to say. I hope that is not the case, because--well, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

But it is possible that she may be persuaded to combine conventional medicine with some kind of complementary medicine for symptom relief, while the conventional medicine does the heavy lifting of dealing with the melanoma. That may be a more palatable way for her to accept the conventional treatments needed.

There is a body of literature about how massage is used pre- and post-operatively for pain and anxiety. If she would be receptive, I would be very happy to forward you those references, but won't bore everyone here with them.

I personally think that surgery + pre- and post-op massages along with follow-up conventional treatment would get her the most mileage of combining in this way, but if she absolutely, positively refuses to give up her homeopathic and naturopathic treatments, perhaps she could be persuaded to use them as complementary treatments (combined with conventional treatments), rather than alternative (instead of), as she now is doing.

Of course, if she can be persuaded to do that, she needs to tell her MD about the other treatments, to look out for interactions (again, a lot of this stuff is simply not known in the medical literature, but what there is, I'll send if it's helpful). But whatever she decides to do, she needs to do it fast--again, you know this.

Let me know if the research references would help, and I'll shoot them right out. Good luck--I hope you can persuade her, and quickly!

PS, Monado--I hope that didn't come across as blaming you if you can't persuade her. I certainly didn't mean it that way; some people are hard-core, and won't change. But if you are able to persuade her, that would be good; if not, it certainly wouldn't be your fault, and I'm concerned my post came off sounding like that a little bit.

Monado_FCD,

The American Cancer Society has numbers for melanoma at www.cancer.org/docroot/cri_24_3x_how_is_melanoma_staged_50.asp - the 5-year survival rates vary between 27-97%, and are strongly dependent on staging.

That's some serious tard going there.

thanks, Glen.

Always good to keep an eye on Collins. I figure we will end up having to clean up after him (and Miller) sooner rather than later.

don't dare post that over on PT in one of Pim's threads, though. Well, unless you want to see how much Pim seems to value the "contribution" Collins is making these days.

controversy surrounding many of his hypotheses still continues to this day, and many of his original ideas haven't even been tested until fairly recently.

The closer you get to humans...