Reading comprehension. Work on it.
Every time I touch on this topic of evolution versus creation, I get an avalanche of lurkers deciding they’re going to jump in and try to prove how dumb Uncle Rizzn is.
Let me first start out by saying that my initial post yesterday wasn’t about starting a debate on the topic. I was simply commenting on the fact that angry evolution proponents, like Mr. Angry, love to use science as a kludge to beat theists over the head. To them, anyone who believes in something bigger than themselves for any purpose whatsoever is an idiot, and in the process of putting their passion on display, they tend to engage in activities (like failure to check the definitions of the words they use, or parse their own logic) that make them look stupid.
Take this comment, for instance:
Angry, I’ve told you before (on Youtube) and I still have an optimistic mind when it comes to the end of religion. I think that religion will be largely nothing more than a memory by the end of this century. I think the rise of the internet and the access to free information and ideas that it contains will greatly assist the world in realising the truth about religions.
I hope so anyway. I hope that future generations can look back and realise how idiotic religion really is.
Perfect. Sounds like an open mind to me.
To the point of reading comprehension:
At this present time, no-one knows how life began. Not any scientist, and certainly not any religious person. This does not change the fact that evolution is accepted as a FACT by everyone other than religious people who believe that God created us as we are today. That, by the way, is not backed up by a single piece of evidence; and if you think it is, please share the evidence with us.
Here’s the translation: “I don’t really support my own position with any facts or research, I think you’re an idiot because I suspect you’re religious, and I’m not willing to research what I think your position might be, but I’ll let you spill it here in a small comment window and then try to berate you over the inevitable holes you’ll leave trying to describe difficult concepts in concise sentences.”
Mr. Angry has a problem with it as well, in his response to my blog post:
Rizzn: Case in point. That is mindless fucking drivel. All you’re saying is you’re fucking clueless about science.
You can re-read my original post, but my response to a reader on Facebook best summarizes my thoughts. From an old friend, Carissa Winland:
The logic in this seems odd. Radioactive decay can accurately place the age of organic material, and genetics and molecular biology is irrefutable concrete evidence, outside of observations. Furthermore, it's like saying, just because we don't SEE a plant grow, doesn't mean that it doesn't grow. We also don't see physics, or gravity, but yet these are concrete laws by which all lives are built. Science uses evidence to infer, not simply observations.
Keep in mind, not a single one of these people responding are in fact scientists. Most of them aren’t even college graduates. My response to Carissa addresses some of her points:
Irrefutable? Radioactive decay is only accurate to +/- ~10k years (if you're talking about carbon dating). How do you prove something as irrefutable if
you aren't around to observe the margin of error? As a basis for comparison - I'm able to guess your weight within 100% accuracy, with a margin of error being +/- ~1 Ton just by simply touching you.Sorta hard to refute that, too, eh?
I did a bit of quick research. According to scientists at the University of Florida, the margin of error generally ranges between 400 and 10,000 years, so my initial point stands, but it misses the larger point that Carissa either casually dismissed or overlooked completely.
In general, and certainly in my original comments, I’m not speaking of scientists per se (nor am I talking about theologians or apologists). I’m talking about the rank and file that tend to debate these topics (typically on the Internet) as if they were experts. Watching the science channel doesn’t make you a scientist. Reading Origin of the Species doesn’t make you an expert. Watching Trinity Broadcasting Network doesn’t make you a theologian. Because you call Christians idiots on the Internet certainly doesn’t make you an authority on evolutionary theory.
See my original money quote: “Simply put, no one observed creation (or evolution), therefore one's conjecture and evidence interpretation is as good as another for justifying a worldview.”
I’ll re-write that again so some of you who are intentionally misinterpreting me will have a more difficult time doing so: most people interested in this topic are only looking to justify a worldview, and when that’s your goal, any old set of cherry-picked facts will do.
Since most people are simply justifying a worldview when it comes to this debate, any old set of facts they come across are as good as any others (see: climate change). They don’t bother looking for the best of the opposing view – they simply look for the weakest argument they disagree with, and then knock it down. It’s great for a debate tactic, but for a set of people looking for absolute truth, it makes them look like the type of moron you’d find on YouTube or Digg’s comments section by comparison.
Simply put, you can’t have it both ways. As someone who has read both sides of the debate (and sits somewhere squarely between the two), you can’t say you’re in search of the truth and never look at smart people who disagree with you.
How do you think I got this smart, people? Was it by spending my life calling everyone who disagreed with me an idiot?
No. I read. I read the sources of research, not just the worldview-espousing books you find at Barnes and Noble. I dig past the wire report and what I saw on that science blog last week. I stay away from the faux-documentaries you find on cable TV. And when I’ve delved down to the source of the research, I look and see who they’re funded by to determine whether they’re constructing studies to prove a point or disclosing legitimate findings.
This isn’t rocket science, this are research techniques I learned in high school while most of my school mates were busy perfecting their keg stands and bong hits.
I like to call it voracious reading comprehension.
Saturday, January 16 at 4:40 - 5:45pmRead the comments on this post...C. Trust and Critical Thinking - Stephanie Zvan, PZ Myers, Desiree Schell, Greg Laden, Kirsten Sanford
Description: Lay audiences often lack the resources (access to studies, background knowledge of fields and methods) to evaluate the trustworthiness of scientific information as another scientist or a journalist might. Are there ways to usefully promote critical thinking about sources and presentation as we provide information? Can we teach them to navigate competing claims? And can we do it without promoting a distrust of science itself?
Saturday, January 16 at 4:40 - 5:45pmRead the comments on this post...C. Trust and Critical Thinking - Stephanie Zvan, PZ Myers, Desiree Schell, Greg Laden, Kirsten Sanford
Description: Lay audiences often lack the resources (access to studies, background knowledge of fields and methods) to evaluate the trustworthiness of scientific information as another scientist or a journalist might. Are there ways to usefully promote critical thinking about sources and presentation as we provide information? Can we teach them to navigate competing claims? And can we do it without promoting a distrust of science itself?
By David Gelernter, Contributor, Edge.org
Edge was in Munich in January for DLD 2010 and an Edge/DLD event entitled “Informavore” — a discussion featuring Frank Schirrmacher, Editor of the Feuilleton and Co-Publisher of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Andrian Kreye, Feuilleton Editor of Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Munich; and Yale computer science visionary David Gelernter, who, in his 1991 book Mirror Worlds presented what’s now called “cloud computing.”
The intent of the panel was to discuss — for the benefit of a German audience — the import of the recent Frank Schirrmacher interview on Edge entitled “The Age of the Informavore.” David Gelernter, who predicted the Web, and who first presented the idea of “the cloud”, was the scientist on the panel along with Schirrmacher and Kreye, Feuilleton editors of the two leading German national newspapers, both distinguished intellectuals.
As a result of the panel, Schirrmacher has commissioned Gelernter to write a regular column for FAZ, which was inaugurated with this essay, published by FAZ in a German translation on March 1st (“Der Mann, der das ‘World Wide Web’ erst möglich gemacht hat.”)
photo by Scott Beale
Congratulations to Craig Newmark and crew on the 15th anniversary of craigslist!
This is a blog post from Laughing Squid, subscribe via RSS, Email, Twitter & Facebook.
Related posts:
- Dave Winer’s Scripting News Celebrates 10th Anniversary
- SFlickr Celebrates 2nd Anniversary
- Laughing Squid Celebrates 14th Anniversary
- Ask a Scientist Celebrates Fifth Anniversary
Of course science doesn’t really happen like this. The pithy exchange above summarizes two years of hard research by an international team of scientists led by Dr. Jin Zou, chair in nanoscience at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis. They found that adding a little bit of manganese to your typical germanium created semiconductors in which the magnetic spin of an electron could be measured in addition to the typical ability to control the movement of electrons within a circuit.
According to the research, the scientists “were also able to demonstrate electric field control using the quantum dots at temperatures up to 100 Kelvin, or –173 C.” That’s a little cold for most consumer application, so the next logical step, from my point of view, is to simply move all this “cloud computing storage” out into space!
Via CBC News.
Don't watch for too long or you will have a seizure. Or, oh I dunno, THE MOST INTENSE ORGANISM OF YOUR LIFE. What? No I don't reread things for grammatical errors. DAMMIT JIM I'M A SCIENTIST, NOT AN ENGLISH MAJOR.
Stereo Dino Optical Illusion [moillusions]
Thanks Vee, I love your mask. Especially the mustache.
Saturday, January 16 at 4:40 - 5:45pmRead the comments on this post...C. Trust and Critical Thinking - Stephanie Zvan, PZ Myers, Desiree Schell, Greg Laden, Kirsten Sanford
Description: Lay audiences often lack the resources (access to studies, background knowledge of fields and methods) to evaluate the trustworthiness of scientific information as another scientist or a journalist might. Are there ways to usefully promote critical thinking about sources and presentation as we provide information? Can we teach them to navigate competing claims? And can we do it without promoting a distrust of science itself?
Admittedly, if you're not a chemist or physicist, you may find this post as boring as dirt. (Please forgive the simile, microbiologists. I know dirt is actually fascinating.) Then again, it's not everyday a new element is added to the periodic table.
The latest addition, number 112, was discovered on February, 9th, 1996 at 10:37 PM by a team under Professor Sigurd Hofmann at the GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung (Center for Heavy Ion Research) in Darmstadt, Germany, who confirmed its existence by observing a characteristic "decay chain" of radioisotopes (illustrated above) that could only have originated with element 112.
Just a couple weeks ago, on February 19, that discovery was officially confirmed by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), who accepted the GSI team's recommendation of the name "Copernicium" in honor, naturally, of Nicolaus Copernicus, whom most will recall as the first scientist to stand up and declare that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way 'round. The new two-letter symbol is "Cn."
Read more | Permalink | Comments | Read more articles in Chemistry | Digg this!Element 112 officially "Copernicium" http://fwd4.me/20A The new two-letter symbol is "Cn"
- LouCypher
Being tied to another person at the end of the word has its drawbacks, take it from the gorgeous short Connected. Plus, find out what happens when aliens disguised as humans with no memory find out they're from the stars.
Connected
We've been ultra excited about Jens Raunkjær Christensen & Jonas Drotner Mouritsen's short since they released the beautiful poster. Now the entire film is online, and you can check it out for yourself. It's short, sweet and horrifyingly to the point. Enjoy!
Sufferrosa
Quiet Earth pointed out this amazing Polish Techno Noir film that has perked up our interest. The colors, crisp look and ladies all help bring this strange little noir film to life. You can watch the trailer over at the official site.
Here's the official synopsis:
Detective Ivan Johnson is looking for a missing woman (Rosa von Braun). The investigation leads him to Professor Carlos von Braun, a scientist who is engaged in the process rejuwenalisation - a rejuvenation for women. Von Braun drugs thr detective and imprisons him in his clinic on a tropical island Miranda. A few days later, Johnson wakes up in a cell...
Survival Of The Dead
The latest red band trailer for George A. Romero's new zombie flick still fills me with hope. I know there's been a bit of negative buzz surrounding this picture, but we're just happy to see Romero zombies. Plus, we love it when people think they can keep zombies as pets. It always ends in tears and blood.
Earthling
The first full trailer for Earthling is out and finally shedding some light on the confusing circumstances the cast finds themselves in. Here's the official synopsis:
After a mysterious atmospheric event, a small group of people wake up to realize that their entire lives have been a lie. They are in fact aliens disguised as humans. Now they have to make a choice. Live amongst men, or try to find a way back home.
The film will be shown at SXSW, which we can not wait to see.
Saturday, January 16 at 4:40 - 5:45pmRead the comments on this post...C. Trust and Critical Thinking - Stephanie Zvan, PZ Myers, Desiree Schell, Greg Laden, Kirsten Sanford
Description: Lay audiences often lack the resources (access to studies, background knowledge of fields and methods) to evaluate the trustworthiness of scientific information as another scientist or a journalist might. Are there ways to usefully promote critical thinking about sources and presentation as we provide information? Can we teach them to navigate competing claims? And can we do it without promoting a distrust of science itself?
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Barak Berkowitz, a veteran of Silicon Valley has joined Wolfram Alpha, an intelligent search engine by Wolfram Research, a Champaign, IL company founded by scientist Stephen Wolfram. He joins as the managing director, a position that is roughly equivalent to the title of chief executive officer. Wolfram, who is English by birth prefers the British corporate titles, it seems.
I ran into Berkowitz at an industry event earlier today and learned about his new gig. Berkowitz left as the chairman & chief executive officer of Six Apart, San Francisco-based software start-up in September 2007. I first met Berkowitz in the late 1990s. He had just co-founder Omnisky, a wireless Internet access provider. I loved Omnisky and it was with that device that my obsession with wireless internet began. It is good to see Barak back in action after a three-year hiatus from the hustle and bustle of Silicon Valley.
Photo courtesy of Joi Ito via Flickr. Copyright Creative Commons.
by Graeme Wood
Moringa oleifera, a tree in northwest India, will feed you and clean your water, and it won't die in a drought. A scientist at a Canadian NGO is urging the wretched of the earth to plant it and solve several problems at once.
I wonder, idly, what other plants have properties that will allegedly save the world. (I realize this is an exaggeration of the powers claimed for the moringa.) Readers of this blog will no doubt know about the magical properties of hemp. To these I might add the American sycamore and water hyacinth, which all-purpose genius Freeman Dyson suggested as plants that we might use to remove carbon from the atmosphere rapidly and arrest climate change.
(Via Greenbang.)
“Bringing A New Understanding To The Director’s Cut” appeared in the New York Times a couple days ago. The author, Natalie Angiers, managed to pump out over 1,000 words talking about a scientist studying the rhythms of movie editing whose name is Dr. Cutting and didn’t get in one joke.
Why did I notice?
Because the rest of the article was pretty pathetic. It had stunning insights into film like:
“Researchers who analyzed the lengths of every shot in 150 Hollywood movies found that directors were increasingly using clusters of shots of similar length. Action movies in particular tend to use groups of quick shots in action sequences and groups of long shots in dialogue sequences.”
I don’t know what I would have done without that information.
People have been obsessed with film pacing calculations ever since Sergei Eisenstein used a fibonacci sequence’s golden sections to set the pacing of The Battleship Potemkin (and a reverse fibonacci for the steps sequence). I think the evolution of film pacing is fascinating and has a lot of reasons (like the move to non-linear editors) and a lot of consequences. If you want to read some real insight into the evolution of cutting and shot lengths, go to David Bordwell’s blog and read a post like his breakdown of Scorsese’s The Departed.
For now, leave the film writing at the Times to Tony Scott.
RT @BoraZ "Best Places to Work for Postdocs, 2010 -http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/3/1/49/1/"
[Direct Link]