The zealously religious often express mistrust and disdain for academia. They direct ire toward scientists. Why? Because these people are too head-oriented. They are removed from the truth of a god “in their hearts.” Or wherever else that truth may reside. Maybe the spleen.
Me, I certainly heed the hunches of my feelings and allow them to guide my behavior, like a personal advisor might suggest a course of action. But when it comes to making decisions in which I have the time and information to do so consciously and deliberately, I rely on my head.
For example, as a rule I don’t gamble. When I break that rule I do it fully knowing I am paying to entertain myself. If I am willing to shell out a few bucks to generate some excitement, fine. The reasoning section of my brain understands, fortunately, that gambling is a losing proposition. Feeling lucky? Take a cold shower.
I also choose not to gamble with what I believe about the universe. The cold showers to which I subject my craving for knowledge consist of books, websites, magazines, courses, presentations, and discussions with knowledgeable others.
On the subject of gods, the human experts of the known — scientists — have found no evidence of The Big Guy. None. Zero. Those who claim they have evidence mean to say they have inferences, and there is a difference.
Are scientists biased, not looking hard enough? Are they fudging the numbers so Satan has a comfy home in the university lab? I don’t think so. Finding credible evidence of a god, in data that could be verified and validated by other experts, would be bigger than big. The scientist or group of scientists who did would be awarded the Nobel Prize and more. Scientists are human. In other words, they are motivated by recognition and reward.
Why are no teams of serious experimenters working on a god-detector? Why aren’t engineers planning and building a device for tracking down the tracks of The Almighty? Certainly human ingenuity and technology are up to the task. Heck, physicists have positively confirmed the existence of particles called “neutrinos.” These subatomic particles can pass through walls of material thousands of miles of thick without so much as causing a squeak. Nonetheless, cunning engineers have found a way to pry their existence out of background noise and a previous void in the data. Not even the Crossing Over guy can detect neutrinos. But scientists have.
Why do the vast majority of scientists leave gods out of their research? Because they full well know that all previous gaps in our knowledge have been filled with naturalistic mechanisms. All. And they see no reason why that won’t be the case in the future.
When a god’s batting average is a perfect zero, it’s time to pull him from the field of play.
I like science. Sure, it has many practical consequences. For example, I much prefer to send RSVPs for upcoming events by email rather than pony express. But I also like science for another reason: as entertainment. Being exposed to new findings is exciting. It’s not unlike intellectual travel. I get to see things I’ve never seen before. So to speak. Science . . . I can feel jumps sparking over the relative canyons of my neuronal synapses right now.
In the spirit of travel, let’s take a brief cruise this very minute. Shall we?
First stop: The Origin of Morality
Where does our moral sense come from? Good question. Many argue “from religion.” But this can’t be, for psychological studies and anthropological research has shown that people without religion have morals and behave as morally as those with. Even other primates and some animals show a rudimentary moral sense. A new study suggests that the capacity for a “moral faculty” evolved out of more mundane forms of cognition and emotion.
Specifically -
Scientists at Harvard University have found that humans can make difficult moral decisions using the same brain circuits as those used in more mundane choices related to money and food. [source]
Who gets the last piece of pizza? It seems how that question is answered might tell us a lot about where morality comes from.
Second Stop: A Transient Gender Difference
In a new paper in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, we find — hold onto your hats now — Study suggests boys and girls not as different as previously thought
Say it ain’t so! (Being facetious here.) Thinking of females as large, living Barbi-s, males as large, living G.I. Joes, just got a bit more antiquated.
Here’s the surprise -
Although girls tend to hang out in smaller, more intimate groups than boys, this difference vanishes by the time children reach the eighth grade.
So some gender differences are a mere flash-in-the-years? Could be.
Final Stop: A Less-Explored Dark Side to Vitamins
Okay, this destination could be a bit of a bummer for some. Like visiting a war memorial. Only what could be said to have been slain here is the hope of easy, natural health improvement — without drawbacks and dangers — provided by . . . vitamins. Vitamins? Doesn’t the very world have pure and uplifting connotations only? How could vitamins be bad?
Truth is, any substance that can influence our biology in good ways can also have side-effects or even outright detrimental influences under certain conditions or in a specific individual/population.
One such case gets spelled out with this headline: Vitamin A increases the presence of the HIV virus in breast milk.
Oh darn. That’s not good. Clearly spelling out the danger we’ve got this lead paragraph -
Vitamin A and beta-carotene supplements are unsafe for HIV-positive women who breastfeed because they may boost the excretion of HIV in breast milk—thereby increasing the chances of transmitting the infection to the child, a pair of new studies suggest.
And there you have it. Brief intellectual travels completed. I like to think that besides providing entertainment, such travels also bring an increased understanding of the world. Which has lasting benefits.
Carnival of Evolution #27 – Feed Your Head Edition
As your server for this evening’s Carnival of Evolution, allow me to introduce the offerings from a line-up of over two dozen chefs!
For your pleasure we have these specials . . . .
1. Chicken’s teeth, whale’s legs, and the tails of humans. Raithie at Teenage Atheist has cooked up some Fanged Chickens (… and atavisms). May I recommend a nice white wine to go with it?
2. Yoder at Denim and Tweed presents a gourmet dinner for two featuring birds, ants, and Doublemint gum: Double the mutualists, double the fun?
3. At Chez Greg Laden’s (Blog), peruse a steam table stocked with pigeons, peregrine falcons, and goshawks. His recommendation: Keep an eye on the prey: You’ll find the predator. An alternative offering of BBC, Darwin, and tetrapods is also available. The title is a bit of a mouthful – Natural Selection vs. Opportunity in Macroevolutionary Patterning of the Fossil Record – but so is a burrito.
4. If you like greens, you’ll find plenty over at Science & Soul. Kazimierz Lebowski ventured into one wild kitchen, 7/6/10—77F—60%H—TFI, to bring you flycatchers, kudzu and millipedes.
5. I bet you’ve never seen these ingredients used together: robotics, soccer, and evolution. Have a taste. Wilfried Elmenreich at Self-Organizing Networked Systems is the mastermind behind this appetizer: Evolving a self-organizing soccer team.
– Excuse me, sir, m’am. You can’t smoke in here. You are welcome to use the side patio for that. Yes, I realize it is an inconvenience for you. But . . . you do realize that smoking indoors would wreck the aromas and scents other guests wish to enjoy? You don’t care? Why, you might as well shred your tobacco and sprinkle it over their plates. Okay. Good evening to you as well. Bye.
Sorry for that interruption. Some patrons! –
6. Care for a glass of wine? We have wine. From where else but Down the Cellar. We’ve got a lovely vintage with hints of bacteria, phage and shared resources. Mouton Rothschild? Mais non. A tragedy averted.
7. At Maison Dr. Carin Bondar we have a special treat: oxytocin, wasps, and humans of the Serengeti. Shall I order you a Sacrifice on the Serengeti – A Guest Post by Eric M Johnson?
8. The Thoughtful Animal is hungry, so we’ve got a two-course feast featuring spotted hyenas, matrilines, and female preference. First, Silver Spoon Hyenas? Followed by Silver Spoon Hyenas: Maternal Social Status Affects Male Reproductive Success. Bravo, Jason G. Goldman.
9. Over at Neuroanthropology, grill master Greg Downey has some fine cuts of wolfs, dogs, and domestication. No, doesn’t taste like chicken. What does it taste like? The dog-human connection in evolution.
10.DeLene at Wild Muse highlights the surprising, multi-layered flavor of this basic ingredient: necks, necks and more necks. A new take on necking (in giraffes, that is) is no standard fare.
11. Imagine eastern fence lizards, White Sands, and display patches all in a classic, NeuroDojo sauce. You’ve just got to try Zen Faulkes’: Dude looks like a lady? Male lizards courting males. Not fond of lizards? Try Please explain the end of kin selection. In this stew you will find hearty bits of kin selection, E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson.
– Are you sure you’d like me to bring you a third martini? It is my experience that after a second, the, ah, sophistication of one’s palate tends to diminish. I, myself, have devoured the corner of a paper napkin in such a state. And quite enjoyed it, sadly. –
12. As table-side treat by T. Ryan Gregory, can I recommend My talk on evolutionary imagery at the Centre For Inquiry? No, it contains no peanuts nor peanut products. But it does have a video, inquiry, and Toronto. You’ll find it at Genomicron.
13. For the chow mien this evening, we’ve got neither pork nor beef, but bacterial cooperation, relatedness, and Hamilton’s rule. Byte Size Biology truly goes delicious with When is it a good idea to cheat?
14. Vegan? No problem. How about some seeds, California, and pollen brought to you by Stephanie Suesan Smith at Information Central in Hybrid versus open pollinated plants.
15. You like Latin flavors? Names and nomenclature in classification by John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts brings all the spice of Linnaeus, nomenclature, and taxonomies.
– Pardon? Did someone just make a special request for a well-done hamburger with American cheese and yellow mustard? They did. If you’ll excuse me a moment I’ve got a date with a double shot of whiskey in walk-in refrigerator. It’s going to be a long night. –
16. And now, something classic à la carte: Darwin, Wallace, and letters. Michael D. Barton’s Darwin-Wallace papers published August 20, 1858 can be found at The Dispersal of Darwin. Seems to be his specialty.
17. Going nouvelle here, Byte Size Biology skirts the cutting edge with Predator MX: Jack the Rippler. Feast on the bacteria, nutrients, and mutants if you dare.
18. Not upper-crust enough? Do your tastes run in the direction of NPR, adaptationism, and tears? You may want to sample some Twisted Tree of Life Award: NPR on the Evolution of Crying at The Tree of Life by Jonathan A. Eisen. Moderately hot.
19. Care for some fusion? We’ve got Switzerland, salmonella, pseudogenes. Jonathan A. Eisen prepared it at The Tree of Life. He calls it Lack of neutrality in bacteria and where pseudogenes go when they die. As an alternative for those without lead bellies, he also offers Twisted tree of life award #6: Scientific American Origins piece for dissing microbes with Swiss Cheese, biodiversity, and sex. Sounds delectable, doesn’t it?
– Should you save room for dessert? I don’t know. Should one build a garage for their Ferrari? Chocolate, fresh cream, pie crust that’s pure art. We’re talking major sugar and fats of the heavenly kind just a tray away. Yes, you’ll want to save room. –
20. Can mimicry, jumping spiders, and ants be sweet? I guess it partly depends on your tastes. Why not try? Head on down to The Online Laboratory of Kevin Zelnio. Tell ‘em you came for the Myrmecomorphy.
21. Almost forgot the seafood! Talk about a special waiting to be netted and served. We’ve got biodiversity, shrimp, and taxonomists by Dr. M. at Deep Sea News. I bet there’s some pepper to this dish: Bull Patrol: NEW SPECIES DISCOVERED zOMG!
22. With a name like Bjørn Østman and a location called Pleiotropy you know you’re in for something unique. Combine some Denmark, fitness, and yeast, simmer lightly and you’ve got Report from Alife XII: life’s origin, and its evolution
23. Like sushi? You might enjoy Eight Ways Elephant Seals Have Evolved at Kind of Curious. It’s not just rice and seaweed: there is elephant seals, blubber, and sleep apnea inside.
24. Into bizarre foods? Is fear no factor for you? It Takes 30 has a full plate of raw Mitochondrial proteins, phosphorylation, and mice. Chew before swallowing Evolving Regulation.
25. Now the finish. We’ve got a chocolate cake in the form of Sauropod dinosaurs, gizzard stones, and eggs. Aren’t you glad you saved some room? Yes, compliments to Cromercrox at The End Of The Pier Show. It’s called, There Were Giants On The Earth In Those Days.
– Was everything to your liking? Great. We accept MasterCard, Discover, Digg, Twitter and more. Hope to see you again.
Speaking of which, the next feast of evolution blogging will be October 1st at Carnival of Evolution. Submit your concoctions here.
Years ago, as an undergraduate student, I was taught about Abraham Maslow’s pyramid-shaped “hierarchy of needs.” I thought it was kinda neat. But I wasn’t a full-fledged critical thinker yet, so it didn’t dawn on me to question how Maslow knew that esteem was a higher need than love — indeed, that it was a basic need at all — and that self-actualization was the highest human need. Did Maslow conduct research? What cross-cultural data did he consult? Or was the pyramid idea the result of Maslow looking into the crystal ball of his creative intuition?
Because psychologists began to realize that Moslow’s model had all the weight of Styrofoam, it ceased being included in many general psychology texts. Including the one I last used in the classroom.
Recently I read of a renovation to Maslow’s pyramid by a team of psychologists and published in Perspectives on Psychological Sciences [source]. Allow me to present “before” and “after” images.
Before -
After -
The article announcing the re-build begins like this:
If you have ever felt that your children are your life’s work, then you may in fact be recognizing a high-level psychological need. Caring for your children, feeding them, nurturing them, educating them and making sure they get off on the right foot in life – all of the things that make parenting successful – may actually be deep rooted psychological urges that we fulfill as part of being human. [emphases added]
Hmmm. While I do prefer the newer version, I’m not sure about the whole pyramid design with higher and lower relationships. And I do wonder what data informed the revision.
The announcement ends with these words -
“The pyramid of needs is a wonderful idea of Maslow’s,” Kenrick said. “He just got some of it wrong. Now people are talking about it again, which will help us get it right.”
I was left with this question: perhaps the whole pyramid idea is off-base, and thus if we stick to it we will never “get it right.” Maybe a “snowflake/constellation of needs,” or something else, might provide a better foundation from which to build our understanding.
If you ask me, remodeling a one-time popular but bogus structure is not a good way to progress. Raze that pyramid and start anew.
Word choice. So important. Not just to advertising companies and politicians. Scientists and science writers should likewise pay attention to the words they use. Not because they want the most bang for their syllables, but because words can be misleading. Inaccurate. They can slant and spin the issue. And no good scientist wants that. Does she?
Two recent news releases about research into religious matters set off the language-police siren in my mind. Oh sure, the perceived mis-use of language may seem slight . . . but the smallest turn of a vehicle steering wheel can add up to a big influence. By “vehicle,” I’m talking public perception.
The first I encountered over at ScienceDaily: Doctors’ Religious Beliefs Strongly Influence End-of-Life Decisions, Study Finds
The finding, as worded in the lead . . .
Atheist or agnostic doctors are almost twice as willing to take decisions that they think will hasten the end of a very sick patient’s life as doctors who are deeply religious, suggests research published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. [emphases added]
Interesting.
Word choice question #1: Why take decisions and the the customary make decisions? Seems to have more radical connotations to me.
Word choice question #2: Why the following switch-a-roo with terms?
And doctors with a strong faith are less likely to discuss this type of treatment with the patient concerned, the research shows.
I thought the variable in question was religious belief. Why the use of strong faith? That term seems to have slightly different connotations. Will it steer people’s perceptions away from the bedrock of the more scientific elements? I wonder.
In the following sentence we do not see the same type of verbal polish applied to the other extreme:
But irrespective of specialty, doctors who described themselves as “extremely” or “very non-religious” were almost twice as likely to report having taken these kinds of decisions as those with a religious belief.
Why not refer to these individuals as “doctors with fully naturalistic worldviews” (or some shorter alternative)? And why was the adverb extremely applied only to the strongly non-religious? Why not extremely religious? Hmm. Extreme seems to have negative connotations.
The final sentence pulls yet another verbal switch:
The author concludes that the relationship between doctors’ values and their clinical decision making needs to be acknowledged much more than it is at present.
Wait. I thought we were talking religious beliefs and lack thereof. How did values get in there? Granted, they probably do play a role. But good science and science writing plays no such shell games; it makes clear when it has veered away from the research results into a more speculative area.
As for the values and decision-making, I can hear some folk spinning the finding now. Non-religious doctors, you know, atheists, do not value human life like religious doctors do, thus they are more likely to pull the plug and or let their patients die.
That would be quite a spin. For another possible interpretation might be: Non-religious doctors feel freer to heed the wishes of their patients and/or to help ease their suffering by allowing a quicker, less painful death. Or something.
Yet another spin: The beliefs of strongly religious doctors cause them to ignore the patient’s needs and suffering at end-of-life.
Words. How you use them makes a world of difference. They can paint a picture that may inaccurately reflect the complex truth of an issue.
The second article a ran into over at EurekAlert — Study: Generation X more loyal to religion. Notice in the following how the choice of just one word can have such important connotations.
As Generation X continues to grow older, this loyalty may translate into a more stable nation in terms of its religiosity, he said.
A stable nation. Stability is good, right? What if the word had been static? What if the the words were, “may translate into a less dynamic nation”? Or “less progressive”?
Okay, I’ll shut down my verbal radar and quiet the siren. For now. Maybe the above is much ado about little. But then again, maybe it isn’t.
Not thirty feet from my head a shark sliced along the clear wall of a building wave. Its dorsal fin briefly split the surface before it descended and was gone. I had just surfed into an area of mush — topside evidence of an underwater breach in the sand bar. As I turned and paddled back out I spotted the five-foot shark. I pushed past the break and sat up, my toes dangling in the home of the toothed torpedo. Moments later everyone was called out of the water. When a nineteen year-old with white goop on her nose, designer sunglasses, and red flag blows her whistle, I guess it’s serious. I paddled in.
I live in the shark-attack center of the world. Around the globe there are roughly 70 reported “shark incidences” each year. Florida’s eastern shore accounts for nearly 30 of them. Fortunately, no Great Whites inhabit our waters. The shark attacks at the beaches I surf are of the you’ll-need-a-few-quick-stitches-in-the-emergency-room variety. Hands and feet get bloodied, not outright stolen. Still, no one wants to get bitten by a shark. But there’s no way to surf without running the risk.
While surfing gives me a physical thrill, science mentally excites me. Both are risky pursuits in their own ways. With science you put your beliefs to a test; you conduct research to see if they withstand challenge.
The risk is that when it comes to the actual data, your belief/hypothesis may take a wipe-out. Then what?
Then you jettison your bruised ego and head back into the action.
Consider this scenario: A surfing friend tells you that when you were out of state, for 7 days and 7 nights there was an endless procession of perfectly glassy waves tubing their way to shore. He had the waves all to himself and he surfed until his arms quit. Would you believe him? I might say, Dude, your beautiful story is making me cry. But until I see the photos, I ain’t buying it.
Tales are like the wake of a surfboard. The scratch a surfer leaves in the face of a wave quickly disappears after the fact; the storyteller is then free to say anything he or she wants about it. Without somehow catching the bubbling slice, there is no hard evidence to prove a tale right or wrong.
It is not, however, up to the listener to prove the tale-teller wrong; it is the tale-teller’s responsibility to provide something more substantial than yet more words to establish the veracity of his or her claim.
Of course, if a claim can’t be verified there is no risk involved. Is it any wonder that the bulk of religious tales and claims can’t be tested? And so they are safe.
Accepting dogma and having faith is easy. Just listen and let be. “Doing science,” however — formally or informally — takes time, effort and exposure to potentially embarrassing, bruising correction.
Not many people surf. There is less danger and more comfort on shore.
