Friday, February 05, 2010 |
 |
Science Contaminated by Government |
 |
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM   
In prior posts, I've recommended this New Yorker article on the widespread problem of olive oil contamination: Slippery Business. That risk of contamination is one reason why I prefer to cook with coconut oil, lard, and butter.
This fascinating story about the possibility of massive government corruption of science might be a case when "toxic oil" was not to blame. In the early 1980s, a mysterious outbreak of illness in Spain left hundreds dead and thousands seriously injured. It was quickly blamed on contaminated cooking oil. In 1989, some oil producers were sent to prison, even though the supposed toxin in the oil was never identified. Similarly, as even supporters of the standard account admit, scientists haven't ever been able to reproduce the symptoms of the supposedly toxic oil in lab animals.
Even worse, even the epidemiological data looks like it was corrupted by a young government determined to quell the panic. The article says:
In order to demonstrate that the oil had caused the illness, government scientists needed to be able to show, for example, that families who had bought the oil were affected, whereas those who hadn't were not; that the aniline in the oil was indeed poisonous and that the victims were suffering from aniline poisoning; and, bearing in mind that such commercial cooking oil fraud had been widespread for years, just what had changed in the manufacturing process to cause the oil suddenly to become so poisonous. To this day, none of these basic conditions has been met. You'll find the details in the article. The most fundamental problem is simply that the cause and the effects don't seem to match up: many sick people didn't consume the supposedly toxic oil, many oil-consuming people didn't become sick. And that's just for starters.
Do I know what happened here? Of course not. The article might be mere conspiracy-mongering; the author might be twisting the facts to manufacture doubt and controversy where none should exist. Or perhaps the author's complaints and doubts are completely justified. I can only say that, if the article is accurate in its basic information, the government's story doesn't merely smell fishy: it's stinks to high heaven.
The simple fact is that governments cannot be trusted with science. Scientists at the government trough are often quickly wedded to grand theories based on political pressure rather than evidence. Then, because they seek to maintain public trust above all else, they cling to those grand theories as dogmas, even as contrary data accumulates. In the process, they often cause serious harm to people by preventing them from living as well as they might -- or preventing them from living at all.
Essentially, to the extent that science is affected by political pressure, it works on the principle of stare decisis -- meaning "maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established." To support their political paymasters, scientists must adhere to precedent, however wrong.
Of course, some scientists might be willing to buck political pressures, but they risk being marginalized or fired for speaking out. Others might be more remote from those pressures, and so able to do good work in quiet. But for any politically warm topic, I trust government science as much as I trust the State Science Institute on Rearden Metal -- meaning, not at all.Labels: Food, Health, Science
| | |  E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink ( )  Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts  via Feed Reader  via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts  M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, December 03, 2009 |
|
How Do You Know If Anybody Is Home? |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
One of the big stories to hit the science blogosphere last week was about Rom Houben, a man who reportedly was (erroneously) believed by his physicians to be in a coma for 23 years after an accident whereas in reality he was conscious all along but paralyzed and unable to communicate this fact to the outside world.
As reported, the fact of his consciousness was only recently discovered with advanced brain scanning techniques not available to physicians at the time of his accident in 1983.
Some follow-up stories have raised the question about the accuracy of the details of his account, especially because it uses "facilitated communication". James Randi raises similar concerns.
But leaving aside the debate over that particular question, I'd like to pose a broader mixed question about scientific testing for consciousness.
From a scientific and medical standpoint, it would clearly be valuable to know if there were a specific test that could determine if a person was truly comatose vs. "conscious but unable to communicate". In other words, it would be extremely valuable to be able to test a seemingly comatose patient and determine whether there was "anybody home", or there were only the bodily shell of what used to be a person.
It's certainly plausible that some sort of scientific test might currently (or some day in the future) answer that question. But I'm not asking whether or not some particular current brain scanning technology actually answers this question.
Instead, suppose that some day a neuroscientist claims, "I've invented a machine that will reliably predict the presence or absence of consciousness. If such-and-such pattern of brain activity is present, then the patient is conscious. If that pattern is not present, then the patient is not conscious."
My questions are as follows:
1) Would it be possible for a scientist to ever prove such a claim?
After all, consciousness is a subjective phenomenon that one experiences "from the inside". In contrast, scientists can detect and measure brain activities which may be correlated with consciousness (such as a certain pattern of firing of neurons or a certain pattern of metabolic activity within the brain), but that's that the same as detecting consciousness.
There are some schools of modern philosophical thought which claim that consciousness is equivalent to (and nothing more than) a specific type of brain activity. If one believes that, then the answer would presumably be "yes", and the question would become purely an issue of science.
But in contrast, if one believes that consciousness is not equivalent to a specific pattern of brain activity (although related to the actions of the human brain in a still-not-fully-understood fashion), then the issue becomes murkier, leading to my next two questions:
2) Would a rational philosophy have anything to say about what would or would not be possible for scientists to claim? And would philosophers be able to give guidance as to what would constitute a proper standard of proof?
3) Or would no such claim by the neuroscientist possible? In other words, would a scientist only be able to claim that he is measuring an objective process that is highly probable to be correlated with a subjective sensation of consciousness -- and that's all anyone can ever do?
Or more colloquially:
1) Can you know if someone is home?
2) Can you know that you know it?
3) Or can you never really know it?
I freely admit that I don't know the answers to these questions. But I'd be interested in hearing from others who might be able to shed some light -- either scientific or philosophical.Labels: Philosophy, Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Saturday, September 05, 2009 |
|
The Flame Game, Geek Style |
|
By Greg Perkins @ 8:00 AM
 A note titled "Alright Men" arrived in my inbox from an old friend, cluing me in to a local tradition which was apparently gaining some fame: You haven't got a hair on you a$$ unless you've done Flying Pie's double habanero pizza. "Man vs. Food" (on the Travel Channel) is doing it this Friday ... not to be outdone, I did it tonight (4, count 'em, four slices) while my co- challenger (not-to-be-named) managed only 2. So, the question is are you man enough? He went on to challenge all comers to meet him at Flying Pie any time during the month and give it a go (August is the only time of year they serve this monstrosity). Another recipient quickly replied: What a load of crap. Were you wearing a pink skirt when you did that?
I bet I wouldn't even break a sweat.
Unfortunately, I am busy any night that you want to do the competition, so I guess I will have to pass. Although, the record books should show that if I wasn't already scheduled for something I haven't thought of yet, that I would eat 5 with no ice cream.
Whoohooo! Winner. In the end, there was just one fool taker for his challenge, so naturally my friend expanded his campaign of peer pressure: OK, ladies, only [one of you] is man enough to take me up on this ... Once [he] and I get a time and place scheduled, I'll let everyone know so if you want to come by, you can see how men eat. And, who knows, maybe some of you will check your ovaries at the door and join us. At this point several of us fell prey to his irresistible powers of persuasion (he's a lawyer). If I had to pick out what made mere words so effective, I would put testosterone poisoning at the top of the list, well known for its capacity to dampen volition. The better part of a dozen males signed on, but no females, which indicates a significant causal factor by Mills Methods of Induction. (As many females as males did attend, but only to mock the guys' idiocy.)
Alright, so Flying Pie will spread diced habanero on pizzas like it's just another flavor of cheese or something, and now we had a shared-strife male-ego-driven test of wills based on it. Being a certified geek, I reflexively broke out some research to see just how ugly this little adventure might turn... and what I might do to better survive it.
First Question: Just how hot are we talking? It turns out that habanero chilies have a Scoville hotness value in the 200,000-300,000 range. (My prior pepper experience topped out at the hotness of the jalapeno pepper, which lands in the comparatively wimpy range of 2,500-10,000.) The Scoville scale is based on dilution into sugar syrup until the heat can't be detected by a panel of five people, presumably selected by their high levels of testosterone. Bottom line? They are saying the heat of a teaspoon of habanero only stops being noticeable when you mix it into about 400 gallons of sugar syrup. Jesus.
Obvious Second Question: Can it harm me physically? The Scoville scale is basically a measure of the level of capsaicin in the peppers. Capsaicin is a chemical that binds to and stimulates nerve endings, especially in mucus membranes, creating that burning sensation. But it's only a sensation of burning -- the consensus seems to be that capsaicin does not itself cause any physical damage when you eat it, though exposure at high enough concentrations could cause irritation, which if great enough could bring "nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and burning diarrhea." So I might hurl -- or come to more fully appreciate the lyrics to a certain Johnny Cash tune the next day, as the pizzeria staff was so helpfully suggesting we would -- but whatever hell my nerve endings might go through, I should come through it with at worst psychological scars.
Third Question: Any chance for a prophylactic... or failing that, an antidote? Sure, everyone has a prescription, and I vaguely remembered a Mythbusters episode that looked them over. Those guys can be pretty objective, so I looked up their results. The upshot? All the various methods, from drinking beer to tequila shots to coating your mouth with Vaseline (ugh) to eating wasabi (wtf!?) and so on are basically crap. They found that your best bet for putting out the fire is to simply drink milk. Others who study such things explain, "Milk contains casein, a lipophilic (fat-loving) substance that surrounds and washes away the fatty capsaicin molecules in much the same way that soap washes away grease." Sweet! I had my secret weapon: just swish and swallow a bunch of milk before, during, and after the ordeal! Maybe this would let me make it through an entire slice and demonstrate my extreme manliness.
So I called up Flying Pie to ask if they served milk. Then I asked, in my most virile tone, if they had a big, tough mug I could drink it from. Hooked. Up.
The evening arrived and we assembled around the table, eyes watering from just the smell of the peppers. I was still wondering just how much the milk could help... 300,000 is a big number. Then our official judge kicked it off! I was careful not to chew any more than necessary (why make a bad situation worse by spreading the capsaicin around?) -- so I was biting off and swallowing hunks of the deadly pie with my best horse-pill-eating technique. Hoo boy! The staff said that the "Man vs. Food" guy gave up in something like two bites, and now I appreciated why. Within about ten seconds I learned I should try to wash every bite down with milk, and to maybe do some extra swishing between slices.
And it was working! Two of us quickly left the others behind, downing slice after slice. He was doing the horse-pill thing, too, but he wasn't using milk. Damn, who is that masked man? Turns out he was none other than The Ringer -- a guy who apparently used to eat whole habaneros right off the plant while gardening. After I'd eaten about 8.5 slices, and just when someone was about to order yet another of the deadly concoctions, the fog of competition cleared long enough for me to see that he would surely go on matching me slice for slice (and staying ahead by one) until my already-full stomach burst.
So I gave my concession toast, ending the ordeal.
I could tell my stomach was none too pleased with me for this gastric offense, but I indeed suffered no ill effects. And I was finally in a position to verify that Johnny Cash was on to something... it's a fact: we don't digest all of the capsaicin we ingest.Labels: Food, Funny, Science
| | | E-mail Greg Perkins PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, July 20, 2009 |
|
Feyman's Nobel Banquet Speech |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
My earlier post on physicist Richard Feynman ("Feynman on Honors") spawned an intense discussion on whether Feynman's stated disdain for what he called "honors" indicated a rejection of justice.
In light of that, I'd like to post the text of his Nobel Banquet Speech delivered in Stockholm on December 10, 1965, followed by a few of my own comments.
Here is what he said:Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.
The work I have done has, already, been adequately rewarded and recognized.
Imagination reaches out repeatedly trying to achieve some higher level of understanding, until suddenly I find myself momentarily alone before one new corner of nature's pattern of beauty and true majesty revealed. That was my reward.
Then, having fashioned tools to make access easier to the new level, I see these tools used by other men straining their imaginations against further mysteries beyond. There, are my votes of recognition.
Then comes the prize, and a deluge of messages. Reports; of fathers turning excitedly with newspapers in hand to wives; of daughters running up and down the apartment house ringing neighbor's doorbells with news; victorious cries of "I told you so" by those having no technical knowledge - their successful prediction being based on faith alone; from friends, from relatives, from students, from former teachers, from scientific colleagues, from total strangers; formal commendations, silly jokes, parties, presents; a multitude of messages in a multitude of forms.
But, in each I saw the same two common elements. I saw in each, joy; and I saw affection (you see, whatever modesty I may have had has been completely swept away in recent days).
The prize was a signal to permit them to express, and me to learn about, their feelings. Each joy, though transient thrill, repeated in so many places amounts to a considerable sum of human happiness. And, each note of affection released thus one upon another has permitted me to realize a depth of love for my friends and acquaintances, which I had never felt so poignantly before.
For this, I thank Alfred Nobel and the many who worked so hard to carry out his wishes in this particular way.
And so, you Swedish people, with your honors, and your trumpets, and your king - forgive me. For I understand at last - such things provide entrance to the heart. Used by a wise and peaceful people they can generate good feeling, even love, among men, even in lands far beyond your own. For that lesson, I thank you... I found the following aspects of his remarks especially noteworthy:
1) For him, his achievement was its own reward.
As a scientist, his primary orientation was towards reality and existence, as opposed to a second-hander's orientation towards other people. He eloquently noted the joy a brilliant scientist feels when, "...suddenly I find myself momentarily alone before one new corner of nature's pattern of beauty and true majesty revealed".
In that moment of achievement, it's him "alone" with nature.
2) He acknowledged and was justly appreciative of the recognition he received from his peers in the form of having his work "used by other men straining their imaginations against further mysteries beyond".
3) He recognized his winning the Nobel Prize served as a focal point by which others who might not understand much about physics could still offer their own appreciation and praise of his work. Although his primary motivation as a physicist was to unlock the secrets of nature, rather than to garner praise from others, he was genuinely appreciative of the praise he received from "friends and acquaintances".
And he returned their praise with a "depth of love" which he "had never felt so poignantly before".
In my experience, this sort of benevolence towards one's fellow man is possible only to those who are independent in a very deep way -- i.e., not primarily trying to seek the approval (or avoid the disapproval) of others.
4) He recognized that "honors" awarded by a "wise and peaceful people" were commendable. Hence, I think he had an implicit understanding of what Objectivists mean by "justice".
(I do acknowledge that his quote in the earlier post could be interpreted to indicate that he did not believe that "honors" were a form of justice.)
5) I'm not an expert on the biography or psychology of Richard Feynman, although I have read some of his books.
But my understanding of his attitude towards his work was that he was incredibly first-handed.
In that way, he was similar to Hank Rearden, as portrayed by Rand in Part 1, Chapter 8 of Atlas Shrugged ("The John Galt Line") as follows:...[Rearden] was watching the performance of track and train with an expert's intensity of professional interest; his bearing suggested that he would kick aside, as irrelevant, any thought such as "They like it," when the thought ringing in his mind was "It works!"
Of course, Rand was not saying that all thoughts such as "They like it" are "irrelevant". After all, one of the key themes of Atlas Shrugged was the importance of granting approval and moral sanction to those who deserve it (and withdrawing it from those who do not deserve it).
But it's also clear from Rand's portrayals of Howard Roark or Hank Rearden, that an independent first-handed thinker would find others' praise of his work ("They like it") to be irrelevant to the primary reward that the creator gains from his achievement -- namely the work itself. This issue is separate from the fact that justice is a virtue and that in a healthy society, good men will receive justly-earned praise for their achievements.
My own take on Feynman was that because he was so extremely first-handed in his attitude towards his work, he viewed others' praise of his work as extremely secondary to the primary reward he gained from the work itself, which may have caused him to regard such praise as "unreal", just as Hank Rearden regarded others' approval of Rearden Metal as "irrelevant" to the primary reward of knowing that "it worked".
But Feynman was clearly still appreciative and thankful for the praise that he did receive when it came from those whom he esteemed. And in his Nobel Banquet speech, he expressed that gratitude with great warmth and benevolence.
To summarize: I found Feynman's first-handed attitude towards his work to be a rare and admirable trait. And given the fuller context provided by his Nobel Banquet Speech, I believe he also had at least an implicit appreciation for the Objectivist virtue of justice.Labels: Ethics, Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 |
|
Real Life Crow Epistemology |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:57 AM
Although I think it would be a stretch to call what crows are doing here "reasoning", crows may be smarter than people generally give them credit for:Crows make monkeys out of chimps in mental test
17 September 2008
Crows seem to be able to use causal reasoning to solve a problem, a feat previously undocumented in any other non-human animal, including chimps.
Alex Taylor at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and his team presented six New Caledonian crows with a series of "trap-tube" tests.
A choice morsel of food was placed in a horizontal Perspex tube, which also featured two round holes in the underside, with Perspex traps below.
For most of the tests, one of the holes was sealed, so the food could be dragged across it with a stick and out of the tube to be eaten. The other hole was left open, trapping the food if the crows moved it the wrong way.
Three of the crows solved the task consistently, even after the team modified the appearance of the equipment. This suggested that these crows weren't using arbitrary features – such as the colour of the rim of a hole – to guide their behaviour. Instead they seemed to understand that if they dragged food across a hole, they would lose it... Labels: Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, October 02, 2008 |
|
Vatican Sullies the Mantle of Science and Reason |
|
By Greg Perkins @ 1:07 AM
The Vatican has announced it will host an "Evolution Congress" as a part of the Pontifical Council for Culture's "Science, Technology and the Ontological Quest" project. This is to mark the 150th anniversary of Darwin's landmark work, The Origin of Species.
Phillip Sloan, a professor at Notre Dame, told the press conference the evolution debate, "especially in the United States, has been taking place without a strong Catholic presence ... and the discourse has suffered accordingly." See? They're here to help! And you can tell they're serious because they are planning to exclude creationists and "intelligent design" advocates (but I repeat myself). After all, these religionists are intellectually respectable, unlike all those biblical literalists:
Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.
He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design. (Yes, it isn't obvious how ID Creationism isn't theological, being a product of religious dogma.) But here's what should be catching everyone's attention: they also said that "the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited."
Of course. We wouldn't want our science to be too scientific at a "strictly scientific" conference, would we? What a charade.
It's tragic that all the church has to do is invite the zillions of conflicted, disintegrated people who consider themselves to be both religious and scientific. Many would jump at the chance to help the church pretend to be intellectually respectable. And the church will absolutely hit the jackpot with any nonreligious scientist stupid or unprincipled enough to show up and wrap them in the mantle of reason and science.
But try as they might, there's simply no getting around the fact that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. Maybe some day the church will drop their fantasy of faith and reason being complementary means to knowledge, like the two wings of a bird. Labels: Philosophy, Religion, Science
| | | E-mail Greg Perkins PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, September 09, 2008 |
|
Derbyshire on the Morality of Animal Research |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 7:03 AM
British scientist Stuart Derbyshire recently wrote the following essay defending the right of humans to use animals in scientific/medical research, and attacking the current UK scientific mainstream position against such research.
I thought it was especially noteworthy that he attempted to make his case on moral grounds. For instance, his article is entitled:"Humans are more important than animals" Also, the subheading is:"When it comes to using animals in research, the only moral judgement should be: does it benefit humankind?" In a related earlier essay from 2006 entitled, "The hard arguments about vivisection", Derbyshire also arguee:There is very good reason for believing that human beings are special. The sheer staggering scale and richness of human culture are unlike anything in any other species. The development of medicine, industry, transportation, communication, clean water, a stable food supply, and so on, are the discernible signs of culture and progress that are evidently absent from the non-human world. The absence of such cultural development in the animal world means that their experiences are also likely to be wholly dissimilar from ours, both as a cause and consequence of their limited progress.
Arguments in favour of animal research must include an acknowledgement that human beings are special... Derbyshire is definitely moving in the right direction, although he does not quite make the full moral case. What he lacks is the explicit identification of reason as the source of human "specialness" (although it is implicit in his argument). It is man's capacity for reason that gives rise to and explains the various unique features of human culture and behaviour Derbyshire describes. "Reason" is thus a fundamental characteristic of "man", and is why one properly defines "man" as "a rational animal".
Derbyshire also doesn't quite make the argument that reason is the source of rights and that it is precisely man's capacity for reason (and the volitional exercise thereof) that makes man's special moral status both possible and necessary:The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. This is yet another example of where Objectivist philosophy can help place others' good ideas on a more solid philosophical footing.
Nonetheless, it is encouraging to see a scientist taking a man-centered view of his work, and using benefit to man as his standard of value. I hope we will see more discussion by scientists along these lines. And I also hope that Objectivists will be contributing to this debate.
* * *
I did submit a supportive letter to Spiked, but I'm not completely satisfied with the argument I used. If anyone has ideas for better formulations aimed at an active-minded member of the general public, please offer your suggestions in the comments section. In particular, I am interested in formulations that would fit within the usual LTE word limit of 150-250 words. I also welcome any criticism of what I actually did submit. If I botched my argument or should have taken a different tack, please don't be shy in telling me!
Here is what I submitted:Thank you for publishing Dr. Stuart Derbyshire's essay, as well as linking to his 2006 piece, "The Hard Arguments About Vivisection".
As a practicing physician, I am blessed to see daily the tremendous benefits that patients reap from scientific breakthroughs resulting from animal research -- such as new "clot buster" drugs to stop brain strokes.
I wish more scientists defended the morality of animal research on precisely the same grounds that Dr. Derbyshire does -- that it is good for people.
Dr. Derbyshire is quite right -- humans are special relative to animals, because they possess the unique faculty of reason. It is this faculty that gives rise to and explains all the manifestations of human culture that he rightly praises in his 2006 essay, such as "medicine, industry, transportation, communication". Animals exhibit none of this complex behaviour precisely because they lack the faculty of reason.
Furthermore it is man's faculty of reason, not his capacity for suffering, that makes the concept of "rights" both possible and necessary. Rights are moral principles defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context -- principles which presuppose both volition and reason. Animals have survival needs, but not rights -- we don't say that a lion violates an antelope's "rights" when it stalks and kills the antelope. Nor does a human violate a cow's "rights" when he eats a hamburger.
If humans can morally eat animals for food, we can also properly use them for other purposes that serve human interests, such as medical research.
Thank you,
Paul Hsieh, MD
Sedalia, CO
USA
Co-founder, Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) Update: My letter (along with a few others) appears here.Labels: Animals, Ethics, Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Sunday, June 01, 2008 |
|
Hangovers |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:23 PM
The May 26, 2008 New Yorker has an interesting article on the history and science of hangovers. I especially liked their bit on international terms used to describe them:Some words for hangover, like ours, refer prosaically to the cause: the Egyptians say they are "still drunk," the Japanese "two days drunk," the Chinese "drunk overnight." The Swedes get "smacked from behind."
But it is in languages that describe the effects rather than the cause that we begin to see real poetic power. Salvadorans wake up "made of rubber," the French with a "wooden mouth" or a "hair ache." The Germans and the Dutch say they have a "tomcat," presumably wailing. The Poles, reportedly, experience a "howling of kittens." My favorites are the Danes, who get "carpenters in the forehead."
In keeping with the saying about the Eskimos' nine words for snow, the Ukrainians have several words for hangover. (Via Cosmic Log.)Labels: Language, Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, May 30, 2008 |
|
Check Your Premises |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:16 AM
In a lengthy post entitled Dissecting Epistemology, Monica challenges the objectivity of many of our supposedly scientific beliefs about the world. She writes,
Apart from the obvious idea that much of science is ideologically driven, many scientists - irrespective of any underlying, driving ideology - have deliberately cooked data and managed to get it published in scientific journals for no other reason than the fact that they are second-handed and they want to be right. And of course, scientific history is also rife with examples of new ideas taking time to become established in the mainstream due to a lack of objectivity in the scientific community. Just take that "quacky" idea that bacteria might cause ulcers!! We scientists "know" that bacteria can't inhabit stomach acid!? Right?? Most commonly of all, in my opinion, is not intellectual dishonesty but the fact that shoddy science is done all the time and people just fail to fully and objectively evaluate that research. Sometimes, those claims then end up becoming part of the "objective scientific consensus" that persists for 50 years. To say, "I've not studied the issue, so I just don't know," is often the most objective, the most self-aware, and the most honest reply possible to an inquiry. Sometimes, it's also the hardest reply.
In my judgment, even though I'm an ardent advocate of evolutionary theory, Ayn Rand exhibited exactly that kind of objectivity in her statement on evolution in her essay "The Missing Link" in Philosophy: Who Needs It. She wrote, "I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent." I've seen that statement harshly criticized in some corners of the internet, as if Ayn Rand were obliged to swallow the standard scientific account of man's origins -- without any study of the facts of the matter. That's completely wrong: it's a demand to accept a theory on faith, just because it's endorsed by a sufficiently large number of supposed authorities. Ayn Rand refused to be that kind of epistemic second-hander. Instead, she formed her own judgments based on her actual knowledge. As a result of that method, she effectively challenged two millennia of altruism in ethics. That's the kind of insight that scrupulous objectivity -- not to mention a large helping genius -- makes possible.Labels: Epistemology, Science
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, May 29, 2008 |
|
Climate Change |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:22 AM
 Climate change on the planet Jupiter is causing it to develop another Red Spot:In what's beginning to look like a case of planetary measles, a third red spot has appeared alongside its cousins — the Great Red Spot and Red Spot Jr. — in the turbulent Jovian atmosphere.
This third red spot, which is a fraction of the size of the two other features, lies to the west of the Great Red Spot in the same latitude band of clouds.
...The Hubble and Keck images may support the idea that Jupiter is in the midst of global climate change, as first proposed in 2004 by Phil Marcus, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. The planet's temperatures may be changing by 15 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The giant planet is getting warmer near the equator and cooler near the South Pole. He predicted that large changes would start in the southern hemisphere around 2006, causing the jet streams to become unstable and spawn new vortices. I'm sure this must be mankind's fault somehow...Labels: Environmentalism, Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, May 19, 2008 |
|
Einstein on God |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:17 AM
I've not studied the views of Albert Einstein much, but I was surprised by this revelation of his views on God (via Dan Rohr):
Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday. The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.
As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people". "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.
The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell. In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people. "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said. "And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people." And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith. Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP. That's definitely a refreshing blast of anti-religious air. Yet it doesn't go far enough. The Hebrew Bible not a collection of "collection of honourable, but still primitive legends." It is a collection of bloody, barbaric, and primitive legends. As a body of primitive literature, the Hebrew Bible is fascinating and often compelling -- but it's wholly unsuitable for moral instruction. The moral lesson of The Binding of Isaac, for example, is the absolute obligation of blind obedience to God's commands, even when those commands require morally abhorrent sacrifices of priceless treasures. Abraham must sacrifice his only beloved son Isaac to God simply because God demands it -- and he's rewarded by God because he's willing to do so without so much as a peep of protest. Such stories ought to be studied and enjoyed as historical curiosities, not as a foundation for modern life and morals.Labels: Religion, Science
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 |
|
Pat Corvini 2007 Course on Math Now Available |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
In my 4/26/2008 blog post, "Are Mathematical Truths Discovered or Invented?", I referred to Dr. Pat Corvini's superb course at the 2007 OCON as an excellent example of applying the Objectivist epistemology to the concept of number. At the time, the course was not yet available for sale.
As an update - the course is now available for purchase from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Here's a slightly modified description of the course, per Dr. Corvini:Two, Three, Four and All That
Number, though ubiquitous, is widely misunderstood. Drawing on Objectivist epistemology, this course sheds new light on the subject by sketching a reduction of the key ideas behind the modern number system and by showing their connection to cognition in general. Recognizing the objectivity of number provides a new framework for resolving historical and modern debates, and yields a heightened appreciation for the science of mathematics as a whole.
This course uses a detailed examination of the ideas behind counting, negative numbers, and area-measurement as concretes on which to illustrate wider conclusions about the nature of number. While not strictly a prerequisite, this material provides context for Dr. Corvini's course on modern ideas of number and infinity ("The Sequel," to be delivered at Objectivist Summer Conference 2008), and is highly recommended for those planning to attend. According to the Ayn Rand Bookstore, the course is a 6-CD set, selling for $61.95. Total run time is 4 hrs., 29 min., including Q & A.Labels: ARI, Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Saturday, April 26, 2008 |
|
Are Mathematical Truths Discovered or Invented? |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 11:23 AM
This question is one of the topics in the upcoming June 2008 issue of the European Mathematical Society Newsletter. As Science News reports, this subject "has provided fodder for arguments among mathematicians and philosophers" for thousands of years, with no seeming resolution.
On one hand, there are Platonists who believe this:...[A] mathematician discovers timeless truths independent of human observation and free of the transient nature of physical reality. "The abstract realm in which a mathematician works is by dint of prolonged intimacy more concrete to him than the chair he happens to sit on," says Ulf Persson of Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, a self-described Platonist. But the Platonists are forced to deal with some tricky implications of their views:Those who espouse discovery note that mathematical statements are true or false regardless of personal beliefs, suggesting that they have some external reality. But this leads to some odd notions. Where, exactly, do these mathematical truths exist? Can a mathematical truth really exist before anyone has ever imagined it? In contrast, there are those who believe that such talk of an abstract realm is just mystical hogwash:Brian Davies, a mathematician at King's College London, writes that Platonism "has more in common with mystical religions than with modern science." And modern science, he believes, provides evidence to show that the Platonic view is just plain wrong. He titled his article "Let Platonism Die."
...Reuben Hersh of the University of New Mexico ...rejects the Platonic view, arguing instead that mathematics is a product of human culture, not fundamentally different from other human creations like music or law or money. But the latter school is faced with a different set of intractable questions:On the other hand, if math is invented, then why can't a mathematician legitimately invent that 2 + 2 = 5?
...The challenge, [Hersh] admits, is to explain why it is that mathematical statements can be definitively true or false, not subject to taste or whim. The solution to this millenia-old argument is to abandon both the intrisicist approach of the Platonists and the subjectivist approach of their opponents. Instead, mathematical concepts (like all concepts) are neither intrinsic nor subjective but objective. It is in debates like this where the Objectivist approach to epistemology and concept formation prove their value -- in being able to cut through the errors made over the centuries by struggling philosophers and mathematicians.
Of course, properly applying Rand's theory of concept formation to the philosophy of mathematics is a non-trivial task. Concepts of number are both seemingly self-evident, but also represent feats of tremendous abstraction. But scholars such as Dr. Pat Corvini have made a good start. Her course at the 2007 OCON, "Two, Three, Four and All That", was on precisely that topic -- namely how to apply the Objectivist theory of concept formation to concepts of number:The concept of number as used in science today is one of man's greatest achievements: a grand-scale integration capping centuries of effort and enabling a vastly expanded efficacy in all areas of life. But the growth in complexity of the number system has rendered the meaning of number ever more mysterious; number is seen both as a touchstone of certainty and as an arbitrary human construct whose applicability to the real world is a deep mystery. This is because the nature of number has not been properly identified; and as Ayn Rand pointed out, that imprecision is dangerous.
This course clarifies the meaning of "number" by examining it in the light of Miss Rand's theory of concepts. Recognizing the objectivity of number provides a new framework for resolving both historical and modern debates, and yields a heightened appreciation for the science of mathematics as a whole—further reinforcing the value of Objectivist epistemology. She is also offering a follow-up course at this year's 2008 OCON, "Two, Three, Four and All That: The Sequel":Science shelves of bookstores are today awash in accounts of modern extensions of the idea of number, including infinity and the continuum, set theory, transfinite numbers, and the like. Many of these ideas, and the "mysteries" that proceed from them, figure prominently in modern philosophy and in popular discussion of the nature and limits of reason.
In this course, Dr. Corvini explains and evaluates some of the most influential of these ideas, using as a frame of reference both their historical context and the view of number as objective developed in her earlier courses. By identifying the fundamental nature of the ideas and of the errors involved, we see again the importance of a proper theory of concepts, and clarify the differences between an objective approach to mathematics and the more traditional views. I have long had an interest in those topics such as foundations of set theory, the nature of the concept "infinity", etc. Hence, if her 2008 course is as good as her 2007 course, then it promises to be a real treat. Diana and I have already signed up for it.
Although I have a degree in mathematics (B.S., MIT, 1984), her courses do not require any advanced math background. Dr. Corvini is a very clear and engaging lecturer, and she is excellent at explaining the relevant mathematical concepts to a general audience. If you can count to 10 and you are a normal intelligent adult, then you can follow her lectures.
So if you want to see how the power of the Objectivist theory of concepts can resolve questions that have stumped some of history's greatest minds for thousands of years, check out her courses!
(I don't believe that her 2007 course is available yet through the Ayn Rand Bookstore, but I expect that it will be eventually. It was available for purchase by 2007 conference attendees as part of the usual post-conference package, and hence I think it will eventually make it to the main bookstore listing.)Labels: Objectivism, Philosophy, Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Sunday, April 20, 2008 |
|
Animal Minds |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 7:44 AM
The March 2008 issue of National Geographic recently published an interesting article on research into animal minds. If the reported facts are reliable, then animals may have some ability to isolate similarities and differences between percepts. Here is an excerpt from the article on scientist Irene Pepperberg and her parrot Alex:...[B]ecause Alex was able to produce a close approximation of the sounds of some English words, Pepperberg could ask him questions about a bird's basic understanding of the world. She couldn't ask him what he was thinking about, but she could ask him about his knowledge of numbers, shapes, and colors. To demonstrate, Pepperberg carried Alex on her arm to a tall wooden perch in the middle of the room. She then retrieved a green key and a small green cup from a basket on a shelf. She held up the two items to Alex's eye.
"What's same?" she asked.
Without hesitation, Alex's beak opened: "Co-lor."
"What's different?" Pepperberg asked.
"Shape," Alex said. His voice had the digitized sound of a cartoon character. Since parrots lack lips (another reason it was difficult for Alex to pronounce some sounds, such as ba), the words seemed to come from the air around him, as if a ventriloquist were speaking. But the words—and what can only be called the thoughts—were entirely his.
For the next 20 minutes, Alex ran through his tests, distinguishing colors, shapes, sizes, and materials (wool versus wood versus metal). He did some simple arithmetic, such as counting the yellow toy blocks among a pile of mixed hues. Of course, researchers have to be extremely careful not to anthropomorphize when interpreting such results. And even if animals are able to perform this sort of mental integration and differentiation of their percepts, this is not the same as being able to reason in the human sense. Hence, this post should not be construed as endorsing any form of "animal rights".
But it is plausible from an evolutionary perspective that the human mental abilities that allow us engage in concept formation and reasoning would have primitive precursors in some of the higher animals, and that human cognition has a foundation based on those pre-existing building blocks. Hence, the exact abilities of various animal minds is a fascinating scientific subject worthy of study, even if it may not have any primary philosophical import.
(I've been told that some Objectivists believe that animals are essentially automatons without any feeling or consciousness, like rocks or plants. In my opinion, this is untrue, and data such as this is further evidence against that erroneous position.)Labels: Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, January 10, 2008 |
|
Cold Weather? I Blame Global Warming |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 7:10 AM
There's been a fair amount of extreme cold weather recently around the world. Of course, many environmentalists are attributing this to global warming. Geophysicist David Deming notes:Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.
Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Labels: Environmentalism, Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 |
|
Theory of Everything? |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 7:51 AM
Physicist/surfer Garrett Lisi may have come up with a physics theory that unites all the fundamental particles and forces of nature, including gravity, without relying on dubious multidimensional string theory. According to this related article:...[H]is proposal is remarkable because, by the arcane standards of particle physics, it does not require highly complex mathematics.
Even better, it does not require more than one dimension of time and three of space, when some rival theories need ten or even more spatial dimensions and other bizarre concepts. In other words, it doesn't require invoking arbitrary new dimensions for which we have no evidence. Plus it makes testable predictions that are at variance with the so-called Standard Model. The New Scientist article states that his theory predicts:...[M]ore than 20 new particles not envisaged by the standard model. Lisi is now calculating the masses that these particles should have, in the hope that they may be spotted when the Large Hadron Collider - being built at CERN, near Geneva in Switzerland - starts up next year.
"This is an all-or-nothing kind of theory - it's either going to be exactly right, or spectacularly wrong," says Lisi. "I'm the first to admit this is a long shot. But it ain't over till the LHC sings." David Harriman mentioned in his lecture to our Front Range Objectivism group last year that any physicist who wants to challenge the dominance of string theory will have a very hard time, since nearly all the grant funding in academia for such foundational issues is controlled by people who believe in string theory. It seems that this is borne out by Lisi's experience, as reported by New Scientist:Most attempts to bring gravity into the picture have been based on string theory, which proposes that particles are ultimately composed of minuscule strings. Lisi has never been a fan of string theory and says that it's because of pressure to step into line that he abandoned academia after his PhD. "I've never been much of a follower, so I walked off to search for my own theory," he says. Last year, he won a research grant from the charitably funded Foundational Questions Institute to pursue his ideas. For those who are interested in the details of his theory, here's the link to his paper (click on "PDF" on the upper right). The abstract reads as follows:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
A. Garrett Lisi (Submitted on 6 Nov 2007)
Abstract: All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold. Those who want a semi-technical explanation (with video) can find one here. My own mathematics background is not strong enough to make an assessment of the merits of his theory. Nor do I know any more about the Foundational Questions Institute besides what's on their webpage. But for what it's worth, I did meet Garrett Lisi at a dinner party several years ago as a friend-of-a-friend, back when Diana and I lived in San Diego and he was still a graduate student in physics at UCSD. At the time, he struck me as an extremely intelligent man, so he would be a plausible candidate for someone who could have come up with a revolutionary new theory in physics.Labels: Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
| | |
|
