Heaving Dead Cats » fascinating

A Wild Ride With Robert Sapolsky

Neece — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:50:18 +0000

My friend Brent sent me a link to a page on the web. It’s a conversation with Robert Sapolsky, a quiet, funny, apparently brilliant professor of biological sciences at Stanford University and of neurology at Stanford’s School of Medicine. Professor Sapolsky has written several books such as:

The link Brent sent me was called TOXO and he suggested it to me because our book club is reading The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture, by Daniel W Ray. Now the video on that page was Robert Sapolsky talking about a most interesting parasite called Toxoplasma. This is what pregnant women need to worry about, and why they avoid cats and cat feces. It can wreak havoc on their unborn baby’s nervous system.

If you read The God Virus, which talks about parasites and viruses as an analogy for religion, I highly recommend watching this video. If you aren’t going to read the book I still recommend the video. The transcript is underneath it too, which will make it even more accessible for you. But the video is longer than the transcript. So take 25 minutes and enjoy it. Here’s another link to the video. I’m telling you, it’s fascinating. As I mentioned, the video is longer than the transcript. He goes into telemeres and molecular age, which I heard a study about recently confirming what he is explaining.

What he’s talking about touches on evolution, common ancestors, parasites and how they go about getting where they need to be, motorcyclists and speed freaks, and schizophrenics, as well as the government’s interest in this parasite. A wild ride indeed!

Of course, as a skeptic, I thought I’d just look around a bit and see who this Sapolsky guy is, since I’d never heard of him. I found his books (linked to above), his Wikipedia page, and a very cool speech he gave to Stanford students about to graduate. It’s about the uniqueness of humans. Here is the Stanford speech:

TED likes him too. Here’s his bio page .

“If a rat is a good model for your emotional life, you’re in big trouble.” Robert Sapolsky

I guess it’s no surprise that he’s an “unbudgeable atheist“. Did I mention he was awarded a MacArthur Genius Grant? But if you watch the videos, you’ll find that he’s fairly easy to understand, so he’s able to teach what he knows, which is awesome.

Oh, and the connection between toxoplasma and schizophrenia? Science Daily has a few studies that I could find:

Cross-posted from Morgantown Atheists

What Makes Us Uniquely Human?

Neece — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:59:45 +0000

The other day, I watched a 3 part special about what makes us uniquely human from the rest of the animals on the planet, namely chimps. It was very interesting and I wanted to share it with you. I’m linking to each full length video and then below I will link to Science Talk’s interviews with Alda about the show and other interesting things.

Here’s some information from PBS:

After some three and a half billion years of life’s evolution on this planet – and after almost two million years since people recognizable as human first walked its surface – a new human burst upon the scene, apparently unannounced.

It was us.

Until then our ancestors had shared the planet with other human species. But soon there was only us, possessors of something that gave us unprecedented power over our environment and everything else alive. That something was – is – the Human Spark.

What is the nature of human uniqueness? Where did the Human Spark ignite, and when? And perhaps most tantalizingly, why?

In a three-part series broadcast on PBS in January 2010, Alan Alda takes these questions personally, visiting with dozens of scientists on three continents, and participating directly in many experiments – including the detailed examination of his own brain.

Program One: Becoming Us (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda confronts the puzzle of why our ancestors in Africa got the Spark and evolved into us, while the first humans to leave Africa for Europe–the Neanderthals–never did. Why did we flourish, while they changed very little for thousands of generations before eventually dying out?

Program Two: So Human, So Chimp (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda joins researchers studying human children and chimpanzees to discover why we share some skills with our closest living relatives, but have far surpassed them in our most uniquely human capabilities. Though we both descend from a common ancestor and are genetically so similar, why are we worlds apart in our behaviors and abilities?

Program Three: Brain Matters (link goes to full video)
Peer into Alan Alda’s head to find out which parts of our brain are responsible for our most human characteristics. Where do tool use and language reside? And how do our brains allow us to understand symbolism, figure out what others are thinking, and even travel in time? Are insight and imagination what really make humans unique?

Steve Mirsky interviews Alan Alda in two parts for Science Talk, the podcast for Scientific American. You can download or listen to them here. This is how I found out about the series and realized that Alan Alda isn’t just an actor. I had no idea he was into science so much.

Alan Alda’s Human Spark, Interview 1: Alan Alda, star of stage, screen and science, talks with podcast host Steve Mirsky about his new PBS science series The Human Spark as well as his strong interest in science and long association with Scientific American.

Interview Part 2: Alan Alda, host of the new PBS science series The Human Spark, talks to podcast host Steve Mirsky about his experiences as a fictional physican, a real patient and an amateur scientist.

The Greatest Destruction of Knowledge

Johnny — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:41:34 +0000

Cyril of Alexandria was born around 376CE and rose to power as the Pope of Alexandria during the peak of the Roman Empire’s rule there. He is credited with leading the charge against Nestorius in the First Council of Ephesus, where the divinity and caricature of Jesus Christ were debated. The Roman Catholic church eventually bestowed sainthood upon him, counting him among the ‘Church Fathers’ and ‘Doctors of the Church’, and also titling him as a Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers.

History might credit him with a much darker deed though, not surprisingly one the church usually fails to mention or attempts to brush under the rug. Although not official of course, some have referred to him as the patron saint of arsonists. His leadership possibly brought about what is probably the single most destructive annihilation of knowledge in human history.

The Great Library of Alexandria is thought to have been founded around the beginning of the third century BCE. A museum, a research institute, and a library, it was the first of its kind. Besides attempting to collect all the world’s knowledge, it housed a number of esteemed scholars; and boasted the latest works in mathematics, astronomy, physics, natural sciences and other subjects. It was at the Library of Alexandria that the scientific method was first conceptualized and utilized.

There are several descriptions of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, all from different periods in time. First in 48BCE by Julius Caesar, then by the attack of Aurelian in the third century CE, by the decree of Theopilus (Cyril’s uncle) in 391CE, by the mob incited by Cyril’s followers around 416CE, and finally by the Muslim conquests around 642CE. Its probable that all of these caused damage to the library in some form or another; but historians have been as-yet unable to say when its complete destruction came about. When it was destroyed though, one of the greatest repositories of knowledge was lost to humankind; somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million volumes of knowledge were lost, many of them forever.

The hypothesis that Cyril’s followers destroyed the library stems from stories of the murder of Hypatia. Hypatia of Alexandria was a Greek scholar who taught philosophy and astronomy at the library, as well as being a notable contributor in the field of mathematics. And a woman; something completely unheard of at the time. Hypatia came into conflict with Cyril, first because of her friendship to Orestes (the prefect of Alexandria, and stanch resistor of Cyril’s agenda for a church-ruled government); and secondly because of the church’s view of many sciences being heretical or associated with paganism. Hypatia was murdered in 415 at the hands of a Christian mob led by Cyril’s assistant, after being incited by Cyril to oppose Orestes and his allies. Without her leadership to defend the library, it was only a matter of time before Cyril was able to convince and incite his followers that the libraries association with paganism and heresies deemed it an enemy of the church and a target for destruction.

Here is an excerpt from Cosmos where Carl Sagan talks about the Library of Alexandria:

If a story has conflict (especially religious or political), with a fight, a murder, and little intrigue… You know Hollywood is going to take a crack at ruining it. And this story is no exception of course. Agora has already been released in a few locations in Europe; but oddly has no US release date. The movie sets the time in 391CE, with the main character as Hypatia; but also including Theophilus, Cyril, Orestes, and a Muslim invasion. So I would speculate that Hollywood is blending three of the destruction stories.

A last little side note: Some historians speculate that the library may have contained actual writings of Jesus (instead of all the third-hand stories). A little conspiracy theory, I know; but if Jesus existed and he did write, how different might that writing be than what the Catholic church collected and distributed?

Information pulled from here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

FREE Scanning Electron Micrographs of Just About Anything

Johnny — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:35:45 +0000

An interesting offer from ASPEX
November 10, 2009 2:54 PM – by PZ Myers

I had my doubts about this; I got an offer from ASPEX corporation to let people get free scanning electron micrographs of just about anything. They make a desktop SEM (Scanning Electron Micrograph), and all you have to do is fill out a form and mail it in with your sample of a dead bug or a microchip or bacon, and presto, within a few weeks they’ll have it scanned in and the image available on their website.

I asked them if they knew how many readers I have, and they said no problem, they can handle it.

Huh.

Well, you heard them. Scavenge your trash cans, dig into your local sources of vermin and oddments, and send them in. I’m thinking this could be really fun for any school teachers out there — you could have the whole class looking for interesting specimens to zoom in on. You can see their current galleries for ideas.

Follow the instructions here to get your dead bugs and rotten food scanned for free.

If you do send something in to get scanned be sure to note that you found them via PZ; and be sure to come back here and share your scan with the rest of us!

Random Thoughts On The Nature Of Things

Neece — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:01:14 +0000

Hello everyone,

First, I am now a Google Waver! Find me at zeneece@googlewave.com. I started my first public wave for atheists: Atheists Unite!

Secondly, I must confess my ignorance on a certain matter that has been bouncing around my brain for some time. I have asked my genius husband Butch and he didn’t have an answer, which made me feel better.

I’ll start with an example:

I always thought aspirin was found in the bark of white willows, and then was made in the lab. But the history seems to be entirely in the laboratory, according to Wikipedia. Also there does seem to be a connection between white willow bark and eventually aspirin.

Needless to say these days, aspirin is made strictly in the lab/factory. My question is, if things are made strictly from chemicals, where do the chemicals themselves come from? And a followup question would be, wouldn’t that make everything natural, at some point? Doesn’t everything eventually lead back to nature?

Another example:

Black Gold, petroleum, crude oil. It’s considered this unnatural thing. But didn’t it come from rotting vegetation and other natural organic matter?

When does something natural become something synthetic?

Why are natural things considered superior to synthetic things nowadays? Is there some proof that it’s true? Or is it marketing/propaganda?

I’m not trying to start anything, or as the Brits would say, I’m not trying to have a go at synthetics. I really just want to understand. If the red food dye and flavoring in my drink stick mix is synthetic, where did the chemicals that make it up come from?

I would love your feedback and thoughts on this. But please, I took chemistry in high school which was over 20 years ago (egads, that made me feel old), so keep it simple.

Thanks friends!

Scientific Explanation For Supernatural Events

Johnny — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:10:12 +0000

Most people look back on history, and see supernatural explanation attached to events that we can now explain scientifically. The sun setting and rising, the weather, crops growing and dieing, lightning, tides, etc. One of the things that still amazes me though is how so many religious people cling to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus clinging to a belief that the supernatural explanations in the Bible really are supernatural events; even though there are scientific explanations for most.

Most of us (skeptics, non-believers, etc) know there is no historical, archeological, or other scientific evidence for the Israelites residing in and exodus from Egypt. But if we suspend our skepticism for a moment, could there be some scientific explanation for some of the supernatural events?

Ten plagues. Ten scientific explanations.

In 1400 B.C., a group of nervous Egyptians saw the Nile turn red. But what they thought was blood was actually an algae bloom which killed the fish, which prior to that had been living off the eggs of frogs. Those uneaten eggs turned into record numbers of baby frogs who subsequently fled to the land and died. Their little rotting frog bodies attracted lice and flies. The lice carried the bluetongue virus, which killed 70% of Egypt’s livestock. The flies carried glanders, a bacterial infection which in humans causes boils. Soon afterwards, the Nile River Valley was hit with a three-day sandstorm otherwise known as the plague of darkness. During the sandstorm, intense heat can combine with an approaching cold front to create not only hail, but also electrical storms which would have looked to the ancient Egyptians like fire from the sky. The subsequent wind would have blown the Ethiopian locust population off course and right into downtown Cairo. Hail is wet, locusts leave droppings, spread both on your grain, and you have got mycrotoxins. Dinnertime in ancient Egypt meant the first-born child got the biggest portion which in this case meant he ate the most toxins, so he died. Ten plagues. Ten scientific explanations.

For a more dramatic delivery, here’s the audio version:

This is an excerpt from The Reaping starring Hilary Swank. Although Hollywood is giving us a dramatic delivery, and simplifying it, they are just spouting pseudoscience.

Okay you can resume your skepticism again. There is still no historical, archeological, or other scientific evidence for the plagues, but at least there is a plausible scientific explanation for supernatural events.

Justifying Our False Beliefs

Neece — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 07:31:47 +0000

I think I’m beginning to understand something about believing. Over the years I’ve encountered many religious people who have tried to explain to me why I need to believe as they do, why they are right and I am a fool for not understanding that. But I don’t have faith like they do. Hell, I don’t want it. Faith, by definition is belief that is not based on proof.

I embrace reason and a desire to understand the universe. While we certainly don’t have all of the answers, that doesn’t mean we stop asking questions. There is always something interesting to learn about.

I love asking questions. One that has puzzled me in the last year or so is why people cling to false beliefs so strongly. No matter how much I reason with a True Believer^TM or try to educate them with facts, they just dig in their heels, sit on their haunches and bray their myths and lies over and over. They block their ears, squint their eyes shut and cry out, “I can’t hear you, I won’t listen… lalalalalalalalala….”

Yesterday I found a new study on ScienceDaily titled “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification”. It was published in the most recent issue of Sociological Inquiry. It’s a study by four research institutions to understand why people kept believing that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks even once it was obvious that there was no evidence supporting that claim.

But that’s not why I was so fascinated. What caught my attention was the underlying research about false beliefs.

Some people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence thanks to a mental phenomenon called motivated reasoning, says sociologist Steven Hoffman, visiting assistant professor at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the study. “Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. For the most part,” says Hoffman, “people completely ignore contrary information” and are able to “develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information.” (Newsweek)

Now, let’s think about the belief in a god that created the world in 6 days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, shall we? And of course, Jesus who died on the cross to save us all from hellfire and damnation. So let’s talk a bit about motivated reasoning:

On page 2 of the paper it states: This model [motivated reasoning] envisions respondents as processing and responding to information defensively, accepting and seeking out confirming information, while ignoring, discrediting the source of, or arguing against the substance of contrary information (DiMaggio 1997; Kunda 1990; Lodge and Tabor 2000).

Motivated reasoning is a descendant of the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959; Kunda 1990), which posits an unconscious impulse to relieve cognitive tension when a respondent is presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs or preferences. Recent literature on motivated reasoning builds on cognitive dissonance theory to explain how citizens relieve cognitive dissonance: they avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against the challenge (Jobe, Tourangeau, and Smith 1993; Lodge and Taber 2000; Westen et al. 2006).

Sound familiar?

What happens when one set of ideas (about god the father and his peace-loving hippie son Jesus) is repeated over and over to you when you are a child? You haven’t even formed your ego before age 6, and already you know about Jesus dying on the cross for you, or whatever myths your parents and religious community has brainwashed you with. When you get older and information starts to conflict with these beliefs, how do you handle it?

Cognitive Dissonance: an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Of course the easiest way to deal with cognitive dissonance is to justify and rationalize your beliefs, and deny anything that might contradict them. That brings us to:
Confirmation Bias: an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions or working hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

Back to the paper (page 3): This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them, regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

So how do people go about dealing with contradictory information to their beliefs? There are several options: (% is how many people in the study used the different strategies)

Bayesian Updating: the willingness to change your mind in the face of contradictory information from a trusted source. To successfully change your opinion you need to attend to new information, remember it, and then use it in decision making. (page 7 of the study) (2.04% of respondents actually changed their mind when given contradictory information)
Deny you ever believed the contradictory information in the first place. (page 9) (14.29% in the study simply denied that they had ever held the false belief)
Resist the new information: (page 11)
- Counter-argue: directly rebut the contradictory information. (12.24%)
- Attitude Bolstering: bring facts that support your position to mind without directly refuting the contradictory information. Change the subject and justify your opinion with other reasons that seem good to you. (32.65%)
- Selective Exposure: Ignore the contradictory information without rebutting or supporting other positions. Just say you don’t know. (6.12%)
- Dispute Rationality: argue that opinions do not have to be grounded in facts or reasoning. (16.33%)
- Inferred Justification: infer evidence which would support your beliefs. This is a sort of backward chain of reasoning. You start with something you believe strongly and work backward to find support for it. (14.29%) (with another 2.04% possibly also falling in this category)

So, here’s what I think. You get indoctrinated by your family, your church, your peers, your culture and your society. As a child you are a sponge for their information about everything. As you get older, perhaps you are faced with contradictory information. You are going to either attend to that new information and assimilate it after careful thought, perhaps changing your belief system in the process. Or, more likely, you’re going to resist the new information in one or more of the above listed ways.

Oh, and regarding attentiveness to the contradictory information by the study’s respondents, the researchers said,

“We found that while all of our “above average” respondents did attend to the information, a substantial minority of our less well-informed respondents—nearly one-third—ignored or refused to engage with information that challenged their political preferences, even when that information came from a source they favor. (page 16)

How many times have I had a conversation with a religious person only to have them pointedly ignore the information I have? Lots. Or when they quote from their own bible and only pick out the parts that support their set beliefs, and blatantly ignore the parts they don’t understand or don’t like? Cherry-picking, anyone?

So this is all food for thought. It at least starts us thinking why most people cling to their gods and myths like safety blankets. It certainly gives us an idea as to how they resist the facts, logic and new information they may come across in favor of their old comfortable beliefs.

Note: I need to clarify something. Belief is a powerful force in our minds that we can all fall into. Quite some time ago I wrote about how knowledge and beliefs are stored differently in the brain. I am sure I have justified my beliefs many times in my life. You probably have as well. I think the difference is when some people are confronted with conflicting information, they attend to it, maybe do some research on it, process it, then use it to change their minds as necessary. I’ve done that many times. The more I practice re-analyzing old beliefs and getting rid of ones that have no basis in reality, or ones that don’t fit my ethics and understanding of the universe, the easier it gets. I think that’s what makes some people skeptics and atheists. It can be quite challenging.

I think there is a difference between a skeptic who is willing to look at different information and change their mind and someone who is dogmatic. That is who is addressed here.

What are your thoughts?

Heaving Dead Cats » fascinating

A Wild Ride With Robert Sapolsky

Related posts

What Makes Us Uniquely Human?

Related posts

The Greatest Destruction of Knowledge

Related posts

FREE Scanning Electron Micrographs of Just About Anything

Related posts

Random Thoughts On The Nature Of Things

Related posts

Scientific Explanation For Supernatural Events

Related posts

Justifying Our False Beliefs

Related posts