science & society
I have mixed feelings about Dennett. I really liked his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, but in public appearances he tends to give off a patronizing air. But earlier today I heard him on WBUR (NPR in Boston) and he did an excellent job of explainning why we, the science community, must begin to study the biological roots of religious beliefs. I also want to add that Dennett did a much better job than Dawkins who in "The Root of all Evil?" (Parts I and II) acted mostly as a cheerleader for one side of the science/religious divide. Click here to listen to the interview.
A couple of comments.
I totally agree with Richard Dawkins, but I feel that in many instances he confronts the interviewee too abrasively, in an unproductive way. On the other hand I enjoyed Ian McEwan's two minutes and Dawkins' monologue at the end.
All this battle of Science and Religion ... it's a mask, a mask for the REAL issue, the issue that any religious person will eventually tell you is the prime reason that they are religious ... morality. I can hear them now "if you don't believe what prevents you from stealing, killing, and raping?" Dawkins heard them too, is puzzled by it,…
Yesterday's video clip was taken from "The Root of all Evil". So without further ado, here's the whole show (I'll post part II tomorrow).
[HT: Simon]
So look what I saw:
Yes this current issue.
Midway down, you'll bump into this paragraph:
Yeah I know mostly frivolous stuff. It kinda pisses me off that its always the S&S entries that get lots of comments and the really neat and cool stories like my centrosome endosymbiotic theory entry gets 1 comment (if I'm lucky).
I guess I shouldn't complain, others have a much more valid reason to be upset.
Everyone is all up in arms about whether Pluto (+ other massive objects at the far end of our solar system) is a planet. It would seem like every ScienceBlog blogger expounded his/her opinion on the subject.
I thought this would be a one day affair in our ADD world, but again this morning I pick up the NYTimes and there is an Editorial entitled "Dissing Pluto and other Plutons". (The NYTimes used the word Dissing???)
The trouble is, the new definition of a planet will include an awful mélange of icy rocks found on the outer fringes of the solar system. It would be far better to expel Pluto…
What a nice day. Sitting on the esplanade, reading Colin McGinn's The Making of a Philosopher (a personal memoir + thoughts on 20th century philosophy). And I come across this:
Nowadays psychology has pretty much the shape that Chomsky advocated, and it is hard to remember the time when behaviorism was the prevailing orthodoxy. I still think this provides a valuable lesson in questioning orthodoxies that go out of their way to deny obvious facts -- as behaviorism in effect denied that we have minds. The sure mark of an ideology, in science and philosophy as in politics, is the denying of…
With everything going on in the world (polticaly, environmentally and otherwise), you would think that the US government would pump money into developing technology that allows for cheaper, cleaner, more reliable, more sustainable sources of energy. These technologies would not only allow us to prosper (lots of cheep energy = increased productivity), but also to decrease our dependence on middle east oil (for obvious reasons).
So com'on folks! Lets build nuclear power plants, fund research into fusion power, or at the very least try to make our current energy usage more efficient.
But if the…
In the August issue of The Scientist, there is an article entitle "The Inequity of Science" (Not online yet). It describes how the top academic institutions are getting more and more of the total NIH funding.
Between 1994 and 2004, in the rankings of universities and colleges according tototal R&D expenditures in biological sciences, the difference between the number one school and the 100th school more than doubled.
Echoing Bob Weinberg's commentary,
In 2005, the principal investigator on the biggest grant, Eric Lander at MIT, received more than $50 million, nearly seven times the…
From the pipeline:
Time is running out to enter Science Idol: The Scientific Integrity
Editorial Cartoon Contest-the deadline is Monday, July 31! We've
received some spectacular entries so far-from artists in their teens to
those in their nineties-but you still have a few days left. This is your
last chance to show off your artistic and comedic talents by creating a
one-panel or multi-panel cartoon that takes on the issue of political
interference in science.
Does the fact that hundreds of scientists at the Food and Drug
Administration report being asked to change technical information for…
Scary comment in PLoS: Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology by Lisa Gross.
It's mostly about Jon Miller's research on the public understanding of science. I've commented before on Miller's findings ... and it always scares me when I see any of these statistics. This time the focus is on public's understanding of "stem cells" and "evolutuion". (I will not comment on the recent Bush veto as SO MANY OTHERS here at SBs have done so.)
From the article:
As time went on, more people said they had a good understanding of stem cells--21% in 2004, up from 9% in 2003--but only 9%…
From Wednesday's Boston Globe - (I know it's a wee bit late): Setbacks for medical research (OpEd).
For the first time in three decades, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health was cut this year. The reduction, which followed two years of level funding, not only imperils the development of lifesaving scientific breakthroughs but also has a detrimental impact on regional economies that are dependent on innovation -- and New England is at the forefront.
...
From 1998 to 2003, federal investment in NIH doubled, with 15 percent increases each year. While budget realities make such…
This up at Nature: The 50 most popular science blogs.
No surprise, Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb head the list (based on technorati's rankings).
Big surprise: The Daily Transcript is tied for #38.
To read more, check out what PZ Myers had to say.
(OK I promise that I'll write a REAL science entry soon - in fact two major Golgi papers are out that give evidence for cisternal maturation ... more details will follow shortly).
First there was the Protein Synthesis Rap, now this ode to the animal kingdom. Enjoy.
Call it part II of an ongoing miniseries. Or, if you prefer, one of many entries on happiness.
Lets think about technology for a moment. Here I am typing on this laptop. Ideas flow (misspelled and grammatically incorrect) from my brain to my fingers to the keyboard ... over a wireless network ... into the vast ethereal space (known as the internet) ... to your home/workplace/café.
So what good is any of it?
You exclaim ... that's preposterous. Technology is good.
You would then continue ... All these gadgets and gizmos, they're good on many fronts. They make us live longer, they help us to…
I got this email from AAAS, and I thought I'd pass it along:
Dear Colleague,
We're now taking you behind the scenes of Science , presenting the authors of life science research papers in Science Online Seminars -- our compelling new online audio/slideshow feature.
Now Showing on a Computer Near You
Every other week, the editors of Science select an author of a breakthrough paper to discuss the application of his or her research and/or the methods and protocol.
You'll meet leading scientists whose cutting-edge papers have made Science the premier scientific journal. You'll hear thought-…
OK here is a myth that I'd like to explode (or at least be provocative about). Technology is NOT inevitable.
Say what?
We humans think that technology increases steadily. With every space shuttle and iPod, humanity advances by one small step. Sort of like that image of the ape walking more and more upright
... yeah that one. But the steady progress of technology is a myth.
Then how does it advance? Punctuated equilibrium? Not really. Humans are adept at finding tricks and shortcuts. We're natural-born cheaters.
There I've said it.
All of our technologies are exactly that. Tricks. Brute…
I just got this email from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Editorial Cartoon Contest Will Draw Attention to the Misuse and Abuse of Science
Top Cartoonists Will Judge Amateur, Professional Talent in "Science Idol"
WASHINGTON, DC - Teaming up with leading editorial and strip cartoonists, the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today announced an editorial cartoon contest
to draw attention to political interference in science. Science Idol: the
Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest will bring together aspiring
cartoonists to compete to win a number of prizes, including an all-…
Well I've been engrossed in reading books on happiness, now apparently Bob McDonald from CBC's Quirks & Quarks interviews leading researchers in the field, including Dan Gilbert. (from Daily Zeitgeist)
Previously:
Last happiness entry.
NY Times review of Stumbling On Happiness.
Dan Gilbert on Belief and Proof.
Notes from a Seed Dinner (attended by Dan Gilbert). + photos on Stochastic.
Recently I've written a couple of entries on Journals and open access. In the latest WIRED, there's a good article on Harold Varmus, and his quest to shake up the biomedical journals.
From the article:
Varmus is the most visible character in the movement to free the scientific world of its figurative corks: scholarly journals that restrict the flow of information by charging often hefty subscription prices for access to their content.
...
He calmly lays out his campaign. For centuries, journals have been the means both of disseminating scientific knowledge and building scientific careers.…