Field of Science
In vino veritas7 hours ago in The Phytophactor
The solar efficiency of Superman1 day ago in Doc Madhattan
The Eater of Light1 day ago in Catalogue of Organisms
The 3 Dumbest Products Sold By Whole Foods Market2 days ago in Genomics, Evolution, and Pseudoscience
Chelicerata2 days ago in Variety of Life
The time the cops pulled their guns on me3 days ago in PLEKTIX
To become an elite sportsperson, you need to win the genetic lottery3 days ago in The Allotrope
Children with a religious upbringing have difficulty telling fantasy from reality5 days ago in Epiphenom
Do all species form the same way as songbirds?5 days ago in Pleiotropy
The 2014 Fields and Nevanlinna prizes: Celebrating diversity1 week ago in The Curious Wavefunction
A Science Communication Activity on Birds and Bryophytes1 week ago in Moss Plants and More
Re-Blog: June Was 6th Warmest Globally5 weeks ago in The View from a Microbiologist
Possible work with the new rpoD mutation5 weeks ago in RRResearch
Geology and Generals: How Geology influenced the Gettysburg Campaign (Part I.)1 month ago in History of Geology
Uncommondescent Unfockinghappy Unfockingfortunately1 month ago in Angry by Choice
Magic Singlish2 months ago in Games with Words
Microtwjc 49: Discussion and Criticisms2 months ago in Memoirs of a Defective Brain
Palaeontology Online: Fossil Focus: Placodonts2 months ago in Chinleana
Rule of 6ix has moved4 months ago in Rule of 6ix
Fire Burn and Caldron Bubble: A chemistry set for the iPad4 months ago in The Culture of Chemistry
Pale Terraqueous Globes5 months ago in The Astronomist
Out of Office6 months ago in inkfish
Live coverage of Big Protist Conference (ICOP) in Vancouver, 28 Jul -- 02 Aug1 year ago in Skeptic Wonder
The Molecular Circus1 year ago in A is for Aspirin
Hey girl. Have you heard about the war on women?1 year ago in The Biology Files
The Lure of the Obscure? Guest Post by Frank Stahl2 years ago in Sex, Genes & Evolution
Finding a new translation factor, and verifying it with help from my experimental friends2 years ago in Protein Evolution and Other Musings
Girlybits 101, now with fewer scary parts!2 years ago in C6-H12-O6
Do Science Bloggers Exercise Free Will?2 years ago in Labs
The Large Picture Blog Has Moved2 years ago in The Large Picture Blog
Lab Rat Moving House2 years ago in Life of a Lab Rat
Goodbye FoS, thanks for all the laughs3 years ago in Disease Prone
Branson getting into microbial diversity in the deep sea3 years ago in The Greenhouse
Meanwhile, in deepest, darkest Canada (Mannitoba, to be precise), the issues are much simpler for the adherents of one bronze-age cult. The Canadian Jewish News reports on the case of Samuel Golubchuk, an 84-year old man with minimal brain function and no hope of recovery:
In a court affidavit, Rabbi Y. Charytan, a Chabad Lubavitch rabbi who works for Jewish Child and Family Services here and has known Samuel Golubchuk for several years, said that Orthodox Jews believe “life must be extended as long as possible and we are not allowed to hasten death.”
Rabbi Charytan said he told hospital officials that “it is a sin and not acceptable” for them to remove life support from Golubchuk.
So, according to Jewish law, developed in a time when modern life support was not even a twinkle in doctors' eyes, we are to fill our hospitals with living corpses. Not only that, but we are being asked to turn our physicians into torturers, in the words of the philosopher Peter Singer:
Doctors and nurses feel they are being turned into torturers, forced to inflict painful procedures on patients who have no hope of recovery. They feel that they are violating their professional ethics, including the precept: "First, do no harm." For example, a nurse said she was appalled by Mr. Golubchuk's condition. He was retaining 45 litres of water, and his skin was swollen to the point of bursting. According to the nurse, "he was rotting from the inside out."Don't these people have any compassion?
With the upgrade, hi-resolution digital images will replace the current 2D pictures, allowing you to peel away the skin and take a look at the organs in animated 3D. So far so good - but new technology brings with it an old (but, as they point out, not a very old) moral dilemma:
However, debate has been raging within Choices as to whether the images should be anatomically correct and include genitalia or whether their nether regions should be masked.In a sane world, this would be a no-brainer. It's a medical website, for Pete's sake! But we have a chance to make them see sense. They're polling the public, so now's our chance to strike a blow for common sense in the NHS! (well, a little bit anyway)
Click here to access the vote.
In this perspective, the era of the Enlightenment generated a rational view of the world based on empirical standards of proof, scientific knowledge of natural phenomena, and technological mastery of the universe. Rationalism was thought to have rendered the central claims of the Church implausible in modern societies, blowing away the vestiges of superstitious dogma in Western Europe. The loss of faith was thought to cause religion to unravel, eroding habitual churchgoing practices and observance of ceremonial rituals, eviscerating the social meaning of denominational identities, and undermining active engagement in faith-based organizations and support for religious parties in civic society.
The publication last week of the international PISA assessment of student’s science competency gives an opportunity to test this theory. PISA used a standard test in over 40 countries – OECD nations and OECD ‘partners’. Each country was given a score according to how well its pupils did. These results can be put together with international survey data on the frequency of prayer (for example, from the World Values Survey and the International Social Survey).
The result, shown in the figure above, is statistically significant (P=0.006), but the association is tiny (r^2=18%). What’s more, the association is weakened somewhat after you adjust the science scores for differences in GDP, and it disappears altogether after adjusting for socio-economic differences between the countries (see figure below).
On the basis of this evidence, at least, it seems that science education has no direct effect on the intensity of religious belief.
Ben Goldacre in the Guardian was also amusing this weekend on the insanity that characterizes the Daily Mail's science 'journalism' (reproduced in his blog).
The books heavily feature allusions to dark matter, and also to the idea of 'parallel universes' - there's even a direct reference in Book 2 (The Subtle Knife) to Everett's 'Many Worlds' interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Everett's classic 1957 paper is quoted by a catholic nun turned particle physicist, of all things. Fan website His Dark Materials takes a look at both (sidestepping the obvious problem that moving from one 'world' to another is fundamentally impossible in Everett's theory...), as well as some other phenomena such as quantum entanglement, string theory, and the aurora.
If that leaves you hungry for more, the excellent science writing duo John and Mary Gribbin have written a book that should satisfy even the geekiest of fans!
Now here's a question: the books rely on Cartesian dualism - souls are not only separate from the physical body, but (in one of the parallel worlds at least) they they have their own embodiment. Not only that, but consciousness is not an emergent property of matter, as those dull naturalists whould have us believe, but is due to the presence of magical 'god particles'. Does this make the books anti-atheist? Perhaps humanists everywhere should be urging a boycott of the films, for peddling such supernaturalist nonsense!
As the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy puts it:
... by behaving altruistically an animal reduces its own fitness, so should be at a selective disadvantage vis-à-vis one which behaves selfishly. To see this, imagine that some members of a group of Vervet monkeys give alarm calls when they see predators, but others do not. Other things being equal, the latter will have an advantage. By selfishly refusing to give an alarm call, a monkey can reduce the chance that it will itself be attacked, while at the same time benefiting from the alarm calls of others. So we should expect natural selection to favour those monkeys that do not give alarm calls over those that do.The realisation that evolution acts at the level of the gene, rather than the individual, partially resolves the paradox. Kin selection gives an evolutionary reward for helping out relatives. Reciprocal altruism, in which an altruistic act increases the individual's chances of help in the future, can explain some other altruistic acts.
But humans also engage in a different form of altruism - acts of generosity towards people who are not related and who are unlikely to personally repay the debt. Such altruism is rare among animals. But research published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science has shown that marmosets, too, engage in this form of 'pure' altruism.
Science explains the experiment:
To see whether marmosets are more selfless, a team of researchers led by anthropologist Judith Burkhart of the University of Zurich in Switzerland placed two of the monkeys in adjacent cages. The "donor" marmoset could reach one of two trays on a platform outside its cage. On each tray sat two dishes--one with a tasty cricket, the other without. When the donor monkey pulled a tray close, one dish came to it, while the second slid within reach of the "recipient" monkey next door. The researchers found that when another monkey was present, the donor was more than 20% more likely to pull the tray containing food to its counterpart. The donor was never rewarded for its good deed and knew it couldn't score a cricket by pulling the tray, but that didn't matter. It seems the marmoset simply felt the urge to feed a stranger.So why should marmosets and humans have evolved this form of altruism, and not other primates such as chimpanzees? Burkart hypothesises that it is because both humans and marmosets are co-operative breeders, in which unrelated adults in the group (so-called 'helpers') take over some of the responsibility for child rearing. What do the helpers get out of the deal. Charles Snowdon, a psychologist at the University of Wisconsin, laid out the possibilities in a paper earlier this year:
- helpers that have cared for other infants have greater reproductive success when they become parents than individuals that do not have previous infant care experience
- unrelated helpers can gain the benefits of living in a social group (communal foraging or protection against predators)
- males that display involvement with infants are more likely to obtain subsequent mating with the female they assist
- Burkart, J., Fehr, E., Efferson, C., & van Schaik, C. (2007). From the Cover: Other-regarding preferences in a non-human primate: Common marmosets provision food altruistically Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (50), 19762-19766 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0710310104
Actually, not all of us know that. The primitive superstitious people with no understanding of science have raised their heads once more. The Causeway Creation Society is a new group championing a biblical interpretation of this famous geological formation. They claim it can’t be 60 million years old as the Earth is only 5000 years old and that it was actually formed by that old favourite amongst hard-line young Earthers: Noah’s flood.
They have lobbied that the Causeway’s visitor’s centre include a biblical perspective on the causeway, they would also like to see exhibits in the Ulster Museum altered to include biblical perspectives on dinosaurs. Forty years of violence hasn’t done enough harm to N. Ireland’s reputation, now they want to advertise to the country’s visitors that we are superstitious and backwards.
The Centre has also written to several assembly members and have put together a petition which they intend on presenting at the Stormont assembly. Are they a bizarre fringe group that will be ignored? If they were in England, Scotland or Wales the answer would probably be yes. Although there is a worryingly growing creationist movement in Great Britain, I don’t think it’s strong enough for these people to get any serious respect or influence. However, this is Northern Ireland.
By far the most religious part of the UK, we protested the Civil Partnership Act (it wasn’t that long ago homosexuality was illegal) and we have as our most senior religious figure a man who renounced the Pope as the antichrist (worth a watch).
Now that the Protestants and Catholics are no longer fighting with each other their extremists are able to unite to tackle their common enemies, evolution seems to be high on the agenda. Paisley’s Democratic Unionist Party has been writing to schools in my own home town of Lisburn to encourage them to teach “alternative theories to evolution”. Our Arts and Culture minister Edwin Poots has made it clear that he believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible as do many of his DUP colleagues. Happily there is some resistance to this
"Lisburn wants to be known as a centre of educational excellence and not a medieval and inward looking town,"
Said Dr Quinn of St Patrick’s High School. Lisburn does have some very good schools whose reputation can only be tarnished by this farce. There seems to be less resistance from the protestant schools, even the highly respected protestant grammar schools, one of which was recently used as a venue for Answers in Genesis’s Paul Taylor.
Due to the religious divide in Northern Ireland most schools have a strong Christian ethos be it Protestant or Catholic and sympathy for creationist views will be easily found amongst many school’s board of governors. There are also plenty of people in the Stormont assembly and local councils who will support these creationist movements.
The people and politicians of Northern Ireland need to decide if they want to maintain their reputation for educational excellence or if Ulster says no to reason, science, education, dignity and international respect.
Lisburn Today: Creation motion passed by Council
Lisburn Today: Schools reject Lisburn Council Call
Because of the consistent confusion between ethics and religion, it is important for Catholic teachers like bishops to clarify positions they take. Are these moral convictions based on church teaching? Or are these ethical convictions, based on human reason, illuminated by Scripture and the teaching of the church? Yes, the church teaches it is wrong to kill, to steal, to perjure oneself, to defame a neighbor, to marry one’s own parent or child. These are not matters of religious belief. They are ethical concerns.
However, the picture's not quite so rosy if you delve deeper. The UK is a lot richer than many of these countries. After adjusting for GDP, the UK slips to 13th out of 29 (the bureaucrats of Luxembourg must be too busy to figure out their GDP), 12th place based on per-student science education spending, and 15th place based on a basket of economic, cultural and social factors. So, in context, the UK's grades are distinctly average.
The UK also gets a slapped wrist for gender differences - boys do better than girls in UK science, and the gap is bigger in only two countries (Chile and Indonesia). Only Australia and Ireland achieved perfect balance between the sexes.
On a brighter note, the UK does a lot better than the US, which managed to come in significantly below the OECD average and reached a lowly 29th ranking out of all 57 countries in the assessment. The difference is particularly stark on the "Living systems" component - where the UK ranks 8th, but the US ranks 34th. Not doubt there is a connection here to the recent poll which discovered that, whereas 79% of Americans believe in miracles, only 42% accept Darwin's theory of natural selection... (Mind you, 32% of mainstream US Christians - and 37% of the lunatic fringe - believe in witches!)