One Astronomer's Noise

Entries from June 2008

Skepticality, cont.

June 11, 2008 · 1 Comment

So I’m continuing to work my way backwards through the Skepticality podcasts, and they are really, really interesting. Every episode features some member of the skeptics community, or some professional in a field that is (was that week) a hot button news issue. Since none of us can be an expert on everything, it’s a great pleasure to hear about the expert work being done in fields, often scientific, and know that the person interviewed holds themselves to the same level of skeptical rigor and scientific method that I expect before I believe someone.

I jotted some notes down while listening to a particularly interesting recent episode last week with Dr. Randy Olson on 5/13, around the time of the “Expelled” hoop-lah. I’m going to try and recreate a coherent post out of my notes here. I’ll also warn that I was probably working while listening, so I may have missed some bits as I tuned out to focus on something interesting on my screen. :-)

Dr. Olson talks about the danger that “Expelled” poses (posed) to the evolutionary biology community and brings up his own documentary, “Flock of Dodos”, and lectures “Don’t Be Such a Scientist!” Now, I was a little put off by that latter title and was irrationally critical before listening. Trying to stay neutral, I did begin to enjoy Dr. Olson, and do agree with some of his points. He is a biologist-turned-filmmaker, so keep that in mind. I have been saying for quite some time that scientists are responsible for educating the public about proper science, and aren’t always good at it. However, in astronomy, as I look around in Charlottesville and on the web, I see a great push to educate the public. However, Dr. Olson still criticizes the scientific community, encouraging them to be more like the ID people in their public relations. But do we want all that flash? Do we want to pan completely to the distracted public, and woo them away with a flashy show? It’s philosophically disturbing, but the reality of teaching science is frustrating. Maybe there is something to be learned here. Elitism is a good thing in one sense, but we do need to educate and communicate.

With regard to “Expelled,” Dr. Olson lists 6 ways in which the scientific crowd helped the movie:

1: Allowing unknowing interviews. Okay, so science folks tend to believe the best in people, aren’t suspicious, and try to educate. This is what we are supposed to do, educate. It’s sad to find out that this cannot happen anymore. Dawkins talks very eloquently about how his patient explanations were abused on his own blog. Luckily, he says, there were no rant-fests. But the worst rants in my experiences come from non-scientists who support science. Is the anger and fierceness to cover up how they may feel left out of the actual science? The anger from all of us is directed at those who willfully manipulate others, not those that make their decisions based on insufficient evidence, or who are manipulated.

2: Denying professionalism of trailer. Fine, but experience to date has shown that the film was only successful with the already-converted-to-ID-crowd. Nothing of substance came out of it; it only served to galvanize the IDists. I doubt that it converted any, although the younger crowd watching the commercials on Comedy Central may be at risk.

3: Playing into PR-machine at Minneapolis screening. I think PZ brings up a good response in his blog, that they are selling themselves. They don’t need to have a movie themselves. I disagree that you need to fight one movie with an equal movie. See #2 for why… different crowds.

4: Predicting box office failure. But again, see #2 on who the movie probably reached!

5 and 6: Wikipedia will probably keep better track of the lawsuits by an animation company and Yoko Ono better than I can. It stopped the showings and may block the DVD release, but Dr. Olson says we can’t count on that. As of June 2nd, Ono’s injunction was ruled down.

So at the end of the day, do we fight this war on their terms or ours? Has Dr. Olson lost touch with scientists in his quest to reach out to the public? Sure, there are lots more we can do to be entertaining and stay positive, but there’s only so far that we “dodos” can go without leaving behind our integrity. Still, I think his book will be an interesting read and is worth our intention, lest we learn something good.

P.S. I hate the term “evolutionists.” It makes evolutionary biology seem like an opinion or philosophy. Yuck.

P.P.S. Shermer reviews the movie very well at SciAm.

Categories: education · science · skeptic
Tagged: , , , , ,

Cherry Season!

June 11, 2008 · Leave a Comment

I can’t help but share what I’m eating right now, hand-picked cherries from Spring Valley Orchard which are delish! We got there on Friday, the first day that the orchard was ever open for hand-picking. There were three rows of cherry trees to choose from, and there were TONS of great, ripe cherries to pick from! It certainly has me hooked on this “pick your own fruit” stuff, so I signed up for the email list.

Living in Charlottesville long enough -> foodie, I’m convinced.

Categories: fun
Tagged: ,

Evolving E. coli

June 11, 2008 · Leave a Comment

There is a great post on Pharyngula about a 20-year experiment on the evolution of E. coli. In that time span, colonies undergo tens of thousands of generations, which make it the perfect test bed for Darwinian evolution. (Although probably not the perfect thesis project!) PZ Myers does a great job of explaining the research in nearly-laymens terms, so check it out for yourself, lest I bungle the explanation. I know little of the field of evolutionary biology, so it is great to read about the discoveries as they are made, rather than the dry presentation of high school textbooks. The basis of the research is that not only did one of the colonies experience a very unlikely mutation that allowed it to thrive under stressed conditions, but they were able to retrace the mutations through the frozen samples of previous generations. The real breakthrough came in discovering that the genetic history of the population has a lot to do with producing the mutation that finally creates the advantage. And then, PZ goes on to skewer a creationist who gets it all wrong, like they do. Check it out!

Categories: science
Tagged: , ,

Bow chika South Pole!

June 10, 2008 · 2 Comments

A friend sent me this story (thanks!) this morning for a good chuckle. Apparently, the last shipment to the South Pole Research Station includes a year-long supply of condoms for the scientists and staff that winter over at the base. Go scientists! I always knew we were sexy. And I’ve also commented that we tend to “inbreed” as in our department at UVa, since we get thrown together in the offices and work late hours and then all go out together… things happen. And they have to deal with six months of cold, cold night to boot. What I also find interesting about the article is that they give out the condoms for free (cue right-wing protesters) so that no one has to face the “potential embarrassment of having to buy them.” Surely that happens in a small community, but theoretically the staff is full of rational adults? Sadly, sex, even in that small society, is not without its mores.

With the fun comes a twinge of bitterness, because you never hear about the cool research that is being done at the Pole, all of the astronomy, geology, biology, and more. The news media, instead, is fascinated by the use of condoms by the scientists instead. Is this intellectual laziness on the part of the reporters, editors, consumers, or all of these? What do we have to do to make science cool and sexy again?

Categories: science
Tagged: ,

Science and Skepticism Podcasts

June 6, 2008 · Leave a Comment

To wean me off of reading cool stuff at work, I’ve been hooked into some really good podcasts lately. AstronomyCast focuses on teaching about cool astronomical phenomena, and was sent to me by a co-worker who really enjoys the series. It’s a good way for an astronomer, who probably focuses only on their tiny piece of research all day, to keep abreast of general topics and explanations. I jumped right into the latest one (at the time) which is a great discussion of the scientific method, and is something that all scientists and science educators need to listen to. There are so many ways in which that scientists miscommunicate their work to the public, and this will help.

Next is Skepticality. I’ve only listened to a couple so far, and it’s pretty good, based on the guests. I listened to the latest one on fossils and evolution with paleontologist Dr. Donald R. Prothero. It’s good to hear a bit about the current science supporting evolution, and to hear about new research. Also, his point about how the media only focuses on certain “glamorous” stories, not how they later get disproven, or even about the slower progress in the field, is true and frustrating. Example from the podcast: all mass extinctions are due to meteor impacts. Again, there may be something that scientists can do in their own communities with talks or interviews and the like to correct that, all the time. Scientists do need to learn to be better communicators, not to be good scientists, but to foster science in our society. We are a minority, and have a duty to educate. We’ll never be able to reach everyone, or convert the anti-science folks, but it’s the vast majority in the middle that don’t pay attention or don’t care can be reached. Dr. Prothero seems to do this as he can with books and textbooks, but also sounds a bit to have “given up” on the current generation.

I’m sure I’ll have more fun stuff to listen to and comment on later!

Categories: astronomy · education · science · skeptic