Skeptophilia (skep-to-fil-i-a) (n.) - the love of logical thought, skepticism, and thinking critically. Being an exploration of the applications of skeptical thinking to the world at large, with periodic excursions into linguistics, music, politics, cryptozoology, and why people keep seeing the face of Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches.

Monday, October 22, 2018

Sit. Stay. Speak. Understand.

As regular readers of Skeptophilia know, we have two dogs.  One of them is a blue-tick/redbone coonhound mix named Lena, who is sweet, friendly, laid back, and has the IQ of a peach pit.  Where some dogs's brains are finely-constructed computers, instantaneously aware of their surroundings and ready to respond to whatever circumstance they're faced with, Lena has an Etch-a-Sketch.  If you turn her upside down and shake gently, she forgets everything she ever learned.


She makes up for this lack of brainpower for being eternally cheerful, although sometimes you have to wonder if she's happy mostly because she has no idea what's going on.

Then there's Guinness.  Guinness is an American Staffordshire Terrier mix whose entire raison d'être is playing fetch.  We're not entirely sure how smart he is, because he might be the most stubborn dog I've ever met.  I think sometimes he pretends he doesn't understand because if he let on, then he'd have to admit that he's not following our commands purely because he doesn't want to.


But he's incredibly sweet and snuggly, at least when he's not bouncing off the ceiling.

This comes up because of some research out of Emory University that was published last week in Frontiers in Neuroscience that put dogs in a fMRI machine to try to learn how good their linguistic skills are -- if they're simply associating sounds with an object or set of actions, learned through classical conditioning, or if they're actually forming representational connections in their brains when they learn words (in other words, when Guinness hears "ball," does he picture the red rubber ball we always play fetch with?).

The paper, called, "Awake fMRI Reveals Brain Regions for Novel Word Detection in Dogs," authored by Ashley Prichard, Peter F. Cook, Mark Spivak3, Raveena Chhibber, and Gregory S. Berns, found that dogs' processing of spoken words is remarkably like that of humans -- except for the fact that dogs show greater neural activation for words they don't know than ones they are familiar with.  The authors write:
How do dogs understand human words?  At a basic level, understanding would require the discrimination of words from non-words.  To determine the mechanisms of such a discrimination, we trained 12 dogs to retrieve two objects based on object names, then probed the neural basis for these auditory discriminations using awake-fMRI.  We compared the neural response to these trained words relative to “oddball” pseudowords the dogs had not heard before.  Consistent with novelty detection, we found greater activation for pseudowords relative to trained words bilaterally in the parietotemporal cortex.  To probe the neural basis for representations of trained words, searchlight multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA) revealed that a subset of dogs had clusters of informative voxels that discriminated between the two trained words.  These clusters included the left temporal cortex and amygdala, left caudate nucleus, and thalamus.  These results demonstrate that dogs’ processing of human words utilizes basic processes like novelty detection, and for some dogs, may also include auditory and hedonic representations.
[Nota bene:  If you're like me and didn't know the word "hedonic," it means "having to do with a relationship to sensations, either pleasant or unpleasant.]

The authors speculate that the reason for the greater activation in dogs when confronted with novel words is because dogs are so tuned in to their owners -- the desire to please is incredibly powerful in the dog-human relationship.  So that suggests that when dogs hear unfamiliar words, they really want to understand.

This explains the Canine Head Tilt of Puzzlement that Guinness gives us whenever we talk to him.  You really get the impression he's trying his hardest to figure out what we're saying to him.  And when he succeeds in understanding -- such as when one of us says, "Do you want your dinner?" or "Let's go outside and play ball," he's absolutely thrilled.  He reacts much like I did when I was taking Classical Mechanics in college, a class that was so far over my head that most of the concepts passed me by without so much as ruffling my hair.  When I did understand something, it was so exciting that if I'd had a tail, I'd have been wagging the hell out of it.

"We know that dogs have the capacity to process at least some aspects of human language since they can learn to follow verbal commands," said senior author Gregory Berns.  "Previous research, however, suggests dogs may rely on many other cues to follow a verbal command, such as gaze, gestures and even emotional expressions from their owners...  Dogs may have varying capacity and motivation for learning and understanding human words, but they appear to have a neural representation for the meaning of words they have been taught, beyond just a low-level Pavlovian response."

Which is pretty cool.  I've always been convinced that my dogs understand every word I'm saying to them, even though you can say any damn thing you want to Lena and she'll still look at you as if you are the smartest person she's ever met.  But it's amazing to think they actually have some rudimentary linguistic skill beyond just simple conditioning.

And, of course, the communication goes the other way, too.  Guinness just came and dropped his ball into my lap.  I tried to tell him that it's snowing out and there's a 25-mile-per-hour wind, but he just gave me the infamous Head Tilt, which is so cute that it gets me to do his bidding every single time.  Making me wonder sometimes who's trained whom.

***********************************

The Skeptophilia book recommendation of the week is a must-read for anyone interested in languages -- The Last Speakers by linguist K. David Harrison.  Harrison set himself a task to visit places where they speak endangered languages, such as small communities in Siberia, the Outback of Australia, and Central America (where he met a pair of elderly gentlemen who are the last two speakers of an indigenous language -- but they have hated each other for years and neither will say a word to the other).

It's a fascinating, and often elegiac, tribute to the world's linguistic diversity, and tells us a lot about how our mental representation of the world is connected to the language we speak.  Brilliant reading from start to finish.




Saturday, October 20, 2018

Pew-pew-pew

Because it's always a losing bet to say the state of things in the United States couldn't get any weirder, today we have: a priest holding a mass of exorcism to protect Brett Kavanaugh from a spell cast by witches.

I wish I were making this up.  You might have heard about the witches, who were so pissed off about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and ultimate accession to the Supreme Court that they hexed him.  Twice.  Once before the confirmation vote, and once, for good measure, afterwards.

The event, sponsored by spiritualist/occult book store Catland Books, explained it thus:
We will be embracing witchcraft's true roots as the magik of the poor, the downtrodden and disenfranchised and [its] history as often the only weapon, the only means of exacting justice available to those of us who have been wronged by men just like him. 
[Kavanaugh] will be the focal point, but by no means the only target, so bring your rage and all of the axes you've got to grind.  There will also be a second ritual afterward — "The Rites of the Scorned One" which seeks [sic] to validate, affirm, uphold and support those of us who have been wronged and who refuse to be silent any longer.
Well, far be it from the Righteous to take this lying down.  So Father Gary Thomas, who serves as an exorcist for the Diocese of San Jose, California, decided to take some serious action.  "Conjuring up personified evil does not fall under free speech," Thomas said, making me wonder what laws it would fall under.

Spinello Aretino, The Exorcism of St. Benedict (1387) [Image is in the Public Domain]

Although given the current administration's reputation for doing whatever the evangelicals want, I wouldn't be surprised if the next bill to go through Congress is a Satanic Attack Protection Act.  Or perhaps a law preventing demons from immigrating into the United States.  Or maybe just a suggestion to build a wall along the border between the U.S. and hell.

Thomas went on to explain further:
They are going to direct the evil to have a permanently adverse effect on the Supreme Court justice.

When curses are directed at people in a state of grace, they have little or no effect. Otherwise, [I have] witnessed harm come upon people such as physical illness, psychosis, depression and having demons attach to them. Curses sometimes involve a blood sacrifice either through an animal or a human being, such as an aborted baby...

The decision to do this against a Supreme Court justice is a heinous act and says a lot about the character of these people that should not be underestimated or dismissed. These are real evil people.
I suppose this is to be expected from someone in my position, but to me this really sounds like two kids fighting with finger guns, one saying, "Pew-pew-pew!  I got you!  You're dead!" and the other saying, "No, I'm not, I got my magic invisible shield up in time!"

Only these are adults, and I have the sneaking suspicion that a significant proportion of Americans think this is perfectly normal behavior.  And these people vote.

So that's today's contribution from the Department of Surreal News.  I keep thinking that we have to have plumbed the depths of government-endorsed insanity, but I keep being wrong.  A friend of mine thinks that all this is happening because we're living in a computer simulation, and the programmers have gotten bored and now are simply fucking with us to see what we'll do.

And I have to admit, it makes as much sense as any explanation I could have come up with.

***********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is something everyone should read.  Jonathan Haidt is an ethicist who has been studying the connections between morality and politics for twenty-five years, and whose contribution to our understanding of our own motives is second to none.  In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics, he looks at what motivates liberals and conservatives -- and how good, moral people can look at the same issues and come to opposite conclusions.

His extraordinarily deft touch for asking us to reconsider our own ethical foundations, without either being overtly partisan or accepting truly immoral stances and behaviors, is a needed breath of fresh air in these fractious times.  He is somehow able to walk that line of evaluating our own behavior clearly and dispassionately, and holding a mirror up to some of our most deep-seated drives.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]




Friday, October 19, 2018

High-tech Nessie search

My obsession with aliens and cryptids is glaringly obvious, not only because of what I write about here, but from my classroom décor.  I've got a cardboard-cutout Bigfoot (not life-sized, unfortunately), a Bigfoot air freshener (it smells like pine, fortunately), and a variety of other alien- and cryptid-themed posters and paraphernalia.

But that's not saying I believe it all, which I'm hoping is also obvious.  The hard evidence for alien life, and for the most commonly-claimed types of cryptids, is woefully inadequate.  (For that read, "basically nonexistent.")  And the more claims there are, the more damning a lack of evidence becomes.  If any one of the cryptids people say they've seen -- Mokele-Mbembe, for example, which is the Congo's answer to the Loch Ness Monster -- actually existed, you'd think by now there'd be something.  A bone, a tooth, a clump of hair, some bit that could actually be subjected to DNA analysis and give us an anomalous, this-isn't-anything-we've-seen-before result.

Which is why, I suppose, the effort now being undertaken to find Nessie is at least approaching things the right way.  A geneticist, Neil Gemmell of the University of Otago (New Zealand), is heading a team that is trying to analyze DNA traces from the water of Loch Ness using a technique called eDNA, which is capable of identifying the source of even minuscule amounts of DNA (such as from shed skin cells, saliva, or urine).

[Image is in the Public Domain]

The German science news site Grenzwissenschaft-Aktuell quoted Gemmell in a press release day before yesterday.  "The method of eDNA is so effective because life itself is dirty," Gemmell explained. "Whatever creature moves through and lives in an environment, it leaves behind tiny fragments of its DNA...  It is this DNA that we are now able to extract and sequence in order to identify these creatures by comparing the sequences determined with the databases of known genetic sequences of more than 100,000 different organisms."

Gemmell writes, in a summary of their efforts:
Currently we are analysing the data we obtained from our Loch Ness sampling trip back in June. 
Since then DNA from ~250 individual samples were extracted at the University of Hull.  From there the DNAs went to the laboratory of Professor Pierre Taberlet at the Université Grenoble Alpes, where we used PCR metabarcodes to amplify the eukaryotic and bacterial DNA sequences found in our samples.  We also used a set of metabarcodes that focus on vertebrate life, given that most monster myths focus on some large vertebrate-like creature. 
These enriched DNA-sequences were then sent to Fasteris (a Swiss DNA sequencing service) in Geneva, where they were sequenced using Illumina sequencing technologies.  We now have ~500 million individual DNA sequences that we are exploring to understand what types of species were present in Loch Ness when we sampled in June 2018. 
It takes some time to explore the sequences robustly, and we have ~5 labs doing this independently.  I expect we will have an answer as to what we have found by early 2019.
So I can commend Gemmell and his team for approaching this the right way.  Still, it's hard to imagine their getting any kind of positive results, or at least anything that would convince a skeptic.  If they find DNA from some unknown source -- even if it is close to that of existing birds or reptiles (the closest living cousins of the dinosaurs) -- how could you jump from that to "it's a plesiosaur?"

There is also, sadly, a pretty good argument for why there couldn't be a pleisiosaur in Loch Ness; the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and at that point Scotland was underneath a huge slab of ice.  Any dinosaurs that were in Loch Ness at that point would have been dinosaursicles.  It's a good way inland; the nearest large(r) body of water is Moray Firth, ten or so miles away, and connected by the River Ness, which averages between two and five meters in depth (depending on which part of it you're measuring and how much it's rained).

Maybe it's just me, but that seems a little shallow to host a plesiosaur.  And that's even presuming that one was in Moray Firth when the ice receded.

So while I'm still willing to entertain the existence of Bigfoot, and even Mokele-Mbembe, Nessie has always seemed to me to be the least plausible of all the more famous cryptids.  There's just too much arguing against her existence, and zero hard evidence.

Anyhow, I wish Gemmell and his team luck.  It's worth doing, even if they find nothing of particular interest.  Of course, that won't dissuade the true believers even so.  Nothing does.

That's why they're "true believers."

***********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is something everyone should read.  Jonathan Haidt is an ethicist who has been studying the connections between morality and politics for twenty-five years, and whose contribution to our understanding of our own motives is second to none.  In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics, he looks at what motivates liberals and conservatives -- and how good, moral people can look at the same issues and come to opposite conclusions.

His extraordinarily deft touch for asking us to reconsider our own ethical foundations, without either being overtly partisan or accepting truly immoral stances and behaviors, is a needed breath of fresh air in these fractious times.  He is somehow able to walk that line of evaluating our own behavior clearly and dispassionately, and holding a mirror up to some of our most deep-seated drives.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]




Thursday, October 18, 2018

Statistical fudging

The last thing we need right now is for people to have another reason to lose their trust in scientists.

It's a crucial moment.  On the one hand, we have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which just a week and a half ago released a study that we have only twenty or so years left in which we can take action to limit the warming to an average of 1.5-2.0 C by 2050 -- and even that will almost certainly increase the number of major storms, shift patterns of rainfall, cause a drastic rise in sea level, and increase the number of deadly heat waves.  And it bears mention that a lot of climate scientists think that even this is underselling the point, giving politicians the sense that we can wait to take any action at all.  "It’s always five minutes to midnight, and that is highly problematic," said Oliver Geden, social scientist and visiting fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany.  "Policymakers get used to it, and they think there’s always a way out."

Then on the other hand we have our resident Stable Genius, Donald Trump, who claimed two days ago that he understands everything he needs to know about climate because he has "a natural instinct for science."  To bolster this claim, he made a statement that apparently sums up the grand total of his expertise in climatology, which is that "climate goes back and forth, back and forth."  He then added, "You have scientists on both sides of it.  My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years, Dr. John Trump.  And I didn’t talk to him about this particular subject, but... I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture."

It bears mention that Dr. John Trump was an electrical engineer, not a climatologist.  And Donald Trump didn't even ask him for an opinion.

So we have scientists trying like hell to get the public to see that scientific results are reliable, and people like Trump and his cronies trying to portray them as engaging in no better than guesswork and speculation (and of having an agenda).  That's why I did a serious facepalm when I read the article sent to me a few days ago by a friend and frequent contributor to Skeptophilia, Andrew Butters, author and blogger over at Potato Chip Math (which you should all check out because it's awesome).

This article, which appeared over at CBC, comes from a different realm of science -- medical research.  It references a paper authored by Min Qi Wang, Alice F. Yan, and Ralph V. Katz that appeared in Annals of Internal Medicine, titled, "Researcher Requests for Inappropriate Analysis and Reporting: A U.S. Survey of Consulting Biostatisticians."

If the title isn't alarming enough by itself, take a look at what Wang et al. found:
Inappropriate analysis and reporting of biomedical research remain a problem despite advances in statistical methods and efforts to educate researchers...  [Among] 522 consulting biostatisticians... (t)he 4 most frequently reported inappropriate requests rated as “most severe” by at least 20% of the respondents were, in order of frequency, removing or altering some data records to better support the research hypothesis; interpreting the statistical findings on the basis of expectation, not actual results; not reporting the presence of key missing data that might bias the results; and ignoring violations of assumptions that would change results from positive to negative.  These requests were reported most often by younger biostatisticians.
The good news is that a lot of the biostatisticians reported refusing the requests to alter the data.  (Of course, given that this is self-reporting, you have to wonder how many would voluntarily say, "Yeah, I do that all the time.")

"I feel like I've been asked to do quite a few of these at least once," said Andrew Althouse, biostatistician at the University of Pittsburgh.  "I do my best to stand my ground and I've never falsified data....  I was once pressured by a surgeon to provide data on 10-year survival rates after a particular surgical intervention.  The problem — the 10-year data didn't exist because the hospital hadn't been using the procedure long enough...  The surgeon argued with me that it was really important and pleaded with me to find some way to do this.  He eventually relented, but it was one of the most jarring examples I've experienced."

[Image is in the Public Domain]

McGill University bioethicist Jonathan Kimmelman is among those who are appalled by this finding.  "If statisticians are saying no, that's great," he said.  "But to me this is still a major concern...  Everyone has had papers that are turned down by journals because your results were not statistically significant.  Getting tenure, getting pay raises, all sorts of things depend on getting into those journals so there is really strong incentives for people to fudge or shape their findings in a way that it makes it more palatable for those journals.  And what that shows is that there are lots of instances where there is threat of adulteration of the evidence that we use."

It's not surprising that, being human, scientists are prone to the same foibles and pitfalls as the rest of us.  However, you'd think that if you go into science, it's because you have a powerful commitment to the truth.  As Kimmelman says, the stakes are high -- not only prestige, but grant money.  Still, one would hope ethics would win over expediency.

And this is a particularly pivotal moment, when we have an administration that is deeply in the pockets of the corporations, and has shown a complete disregard for scientific findings and the opinions of experts.  The last thing we need is to give them more ammunition for claiming that science is unreliable.

But it's still a good thing, really, that Wang et al. have done this study.  You can't fix a problem when you don't know anything about it.  (Which is a truism Trump could learn from.  "Climate goes back and forth, back and forth," my ass.)  It's to be hoped that this will lead to better oversight of statistical analysis and a more stringent criterion during peer review.  Re-establishing the public trust in scientists is absolutely critical.  Our lives, and the long-term habitability of the Earth, could depend on it.

 ***********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is something everyone should read.  Jonathan Haidt is an ethicist who has been studying the connections between morality and politics for twenty-five years, and whose contribution to our understanding of our own motives is second to none.  In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics, he looks at what motivates liberals and conservatives -- and how good, moral people can look at the same issues and come to opposite conclusions.

His extraordinarily deft touch for asking us to reconsider our own ethical foundations, without either being overtly partisan or accepting truly immoral stances and behaviors, is a needed breath of fresh air in these fractious times.  He is somehow able to walk that line of evaluating our own behavior clearly and dispassionately, and holding a mirror up to some of our most deep-seated drives.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]




Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Reunion recap

Robert Burns famously said:
O, would some power the giftie gi'e us
To see ourselves as others see us.
It would frae many a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.
I got a lesson in that general principle this past weekend, when I went to my 40th high school reunion.  Which was a little surreal from another aspect, which is that I can't really believe that much time has passed.  I don't feel like I'm a week or so shy of 58 years old, but I had confirmed for me several times at the party that yes, actually we are that old.

Maybe the reason I don't feel old is because my personality, and especially my sense of humor, kind of plateaued some time around tenth grade.  I mean, I still laugh at fart jokes.  I suppose that's why I ended up teaching adolescents, I'm right on their emotional level.

But there was another eye-opening thing about the reunion, which was how many people remembered me with apparent fondness.  I didn't think I was disliked in school so much as I felt invisible, kind of a nonentity.  Because of my shyness and anxiety my social life was zilch, and I figured most of my classmates had their attention focused on the popular kids -- the confident ones, the star athletes, the party animals, the class clowns.

Me, I read a lot, ran a lot, listened to music, and tried to figure out how to do the bare minimum homework it took to get by in classes I didn't like.  Other than that, I pretty much just tried to keep my head down and fly under the radar.  I did have a bit of a reputation for being a smartass (something that got me in trouble more than once), but overall, I felt like someone no one much would have a reason to notice.

I was bowled over by the warmth with which I was greeted on Saturday night.  I received dozens of hugs and handshakes, and was told over and over how well people remembered me.  I thought that some of it might be Facebook -- since I post links to my novels and to Skeptophilia there, I knew that the dozen or so of my former classmates who are Facebook friends would know a bit about me.

But it's more than that, because I received the same kind of welcome from people who aren't connected to me on social media, and most of whom I literally have not seen since we graduated in June of 1978.  I left that evening feeling a mixture of elation and sadness -- elation because I was evidently much better liked than I ever dreamed, and sadness because I hadn't realized it at the time, and had spent the intervening years thinking of myself as having been the amiable, bookish nobody, the kid who everyone looked past, who never got into the yearbook, whom no one really knew.

What this all points up is how completely inaccurate our own self-assessments are.  I wish I'd known sooner.  I might have been less afraid, less worried about what others thought, less concerned that everyone else seemed more popular than me.  I might have had the courage to join clubs, go to dances, ask out the cute girl I had a life-threatening crush on.  To put it succinctly, I might have had a hell of a lot more fun.

Me having fun, of all things

But as my grandma always said, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.  You can't change the past; all you can do is recognize it for what it is, realize you were doing the best you could with what you knew then.  Forgive yourself for what you didn't know, what you misunderstood, for your missteps and fumbles and awkward moments.  We've all had them, and they apparently matter far, far less than we usually think at the time.

So the party was great, and being that this is southern Louisiana, there was enough food to feed the French army, a well-stocked bar, and music and dancing and socializing until the wee hours.  I arrived home Monday night, exhausted and still feeling a little disembodied.  And the oddest thing of all is that I -- as neurotic and anxious as I am -- fell asleep with the thought, "Hey, they said there'll be a 45th reunion in five years.  I'm already looking forward to it."

***********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is something everyone should read.  Jonathan Haidt is an ethicist who has been studying the connections between morality and politics for twenty-five years, and whose contribution to our understanding of our own motives is second to none.  In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics, he looks at what motivates liberals and conservatives -- and how good, moral people can look at the same issues and come to opposite conclusions.

His extraordinarily deft touch for asking us to reconsider our own ethical foundations, without either being overtly partisan or accepting truly immoral stances and behaviors, is a needed breath of fresh air in these fractious times.  He is somehow able to walk that line of evaluating our own behavior clearly and dispassionately, and holding a mirror up to some of our most deep-seated drives.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]




Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Apocalypse not

Can I explain something, for what I devoutly hope is the last time?

The Yellowstone Supervolcano is not about to erupt.

This claim has been going around for some time, in various guises.  Once it was because a tourist saw some bison acting oddly and from that jumped to "all the wildlife are leaving the park" and from there to "so it's about to blow sky-high."

Well, this was four years ago, and if the Supervolcano had erupted, I think we would have noticed.  So it's a big "nope" on that one.  Bison may be cool animals, but as geologists, they suck.

Then it got picked up by the conspiracy theorists, who conjectured that NASA or DARPA or FEMA or some other evil government acronym had found out that eruption was imminent, and was conspiring to cover it up so as not to cause mass panic, except some people with websites who really ought to be sedated found out, and were letting us know so we could get the hell out.  All of which was well-meant, I suppose, but it became a moot point when the eruption once again failed to materialize.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Clément Bardot, Grand Prismatic Spring, CC BY-SA 3.0]

The latest iteration, which I have now seen posted as a serious claim at least a half-dozen times on social media, is that (1) Yellowstone is going to erupt, and (2) there's a secret NASA program to drill into it and bleed off the heat so they can prevent it.  At least NASA gets cast as one of the good guys, here; I'm sure the scientists are sick unto death of being portrayed as rubbing their hands together and cackling while plotting to destroy the world.

This comes from the apocalyptic site Breaking Israel News, and includes stuff like the following:
After initially denying that the unusual amount of seismic activity witnessed last year was an indication of imminent danger, NASA scientists are proposing a solution that could save half the world while admitting that their intervention could initiate the explosion it was intended to prevent. 
Last year, increased seismic activity at Yellowstone generated a great deal of concern.  More than 2,300 tremors were recorded between June and September, one of the largest earthquake swarms ever recorded at the site.  Though geologists assured the public that the activity was normal for the site, another series of quakes and unusual eruptions beginning in February, increased fears that the supervolcano was waking up.  An investigation revealed magma filling up in the underneath chamber of the supervolcano.  In July, a massive, 100 ft.-wide fissure opened up in the Grand Teton National Park near Yellowstone, further increasing fears. 
To look only at the most egregious errors in that passage:
  1. The solution to "save half the world" was proposed in a theoretical sense only by Brian Wilcox of NASA/JPL.  It involves pumping water down a drill shaft into the rock surrounding the volcano, then pumping the resulting steam back to the surface (and using it for electricity production).  This would "bleed off" the heat from the volcano, which would freeze and no longer be a threat.  The problem with this is twofold: first, it would cost 3.46 billion dollars, and second, the bleed-off of heat would be so slow (and the volcano is so large) that it would take hundreds, possibly thousands, of years to cool it enough to stop an eruption.  Which Wilcox says, right there in his paper.
  2. The 2,300 tremors between June and September are completely ordinary.  The Yellowstone area gets shaken multiple times on a daily basis, and most of them are too small to feel.  It's a seismically active area.  Recall what "seismically active" means.
  3. The fissure in the Grand Tetons had zilch to do with the Supervolcano.  It happened because mountains have landslides sometimes.  Saying it indicates an imminent volcanic eruption is no more sensible than connecting eruptions to bisons acting weird.
So you don't need to cancel your vacation plans to Wyoming yet.  Scientists assure us that there will be plenty of warning if the volcano shows signs of an eruption.

Anyhow, the woo-woos need to give this one a rest, because we're all safe, from that threat, at least.  You'd think the more imminent threat would be climate change and the fact that Trump and his followers seem to be trying to create Nazi Germany 2.0.  Compared to that, I'll accept the risk of Yellowstone erupting without a second thought.

***********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is something everyone should read.  Jonathan Haidt is an ethicist who has been studying the connections between morality and politics for twenty-five years, and whose contribution to our understanding of our own motives is second to none.  In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics, he looks at what motivates liberals and conservatives -- and how good, moral people can look at the same issues and come to opposite conclusions.

His extraordinarily deft touch for asking us to reconsider our own ethical foundations, without either being overtly partisan or accepting truly immoral stances and behaviors, is a needed breath of fresh air in these fractious times.  He is somehow able to walk that line of evaluating our own behavior clearly and dispassionately, and holding a mirror up to some of our most deep-seated drives.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]




Monday, October 15, 2018

The right to bigotry

New from the "What The Hell Did You Think Was Going To Happen?" department, we have: states that have passed "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" -- which allow doctors and other professionals to refuse services to LGBTQ people on the basis of "freedom of religion" -- have markedly poorer health outcomes for sexual minorities than ones that have not.

An analysis done in Indiana by medical researchers at the Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health analyzed the number of "unhealthy days" -- days on which the individual reported poor physical or mental health -- before and after the passage of an RFRA law, as a function of whether the subjects were heterosexual or LGBTQ.  The results couldn't be clearer.  Before and after the passage of the RFRA, the number of unhealthy days climbed for LGBTQ individuals, but remained constant for heterosexuals; and the same statistic in states that did not have RFRAs showed no change for either demographic in the same time period.

"Although we can’t say for certain what caused this significant increase in unhealthy days for sexual minority people in Indiana, the change coincided with intense public debate over enactment of the RFRA law," said lead author John R. Blosnich, assistant professor at the Pitt School of Medicine.  "If some other general, statewide factor was at work, we would expect to see the same increase in unhealthy days for heterosexual people in Indiana, and we didn’t see that."

"The Indiana case suggests that the character of the RFRA law might be an important factor in its broader impacts on public health,” said study co-author Erin Cassese of the University of Delaware.  "Some RFRAs are stronger than others, and Indiana’s RFRA law ‘has teeth’ in the sense that it can be used in private litigation, including cases where businesses wish to deny services to sexual minorities. It also permits courts to grant compensatory damages against whomever brings the suit – making a court challenge to a service denial a much riskier proposition...  This project adds to a growing body of research demonstrating that experiences of discrimination are associated with poor health outcomes in a range of minority populations.  While debate over RFRA laws doesn’t typically engage with questions of public health, this project suggests negative health outcomes might be a consequence of this type of policy, and thus warrant some consideration by policymakers."

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Benson Kua, Rainbow flag breeze, CC BY-SA 2.0]

I find it absolutely infuriating when mainstream Christians portray themselves as a persecuted group whose religious views have to be enshrined in law even if those views allow them to discriminate against others.  And here I thought one of the main teachings of Jesus was "love thy neighbor as thyself."  I guess what Jesus meant to say was "love thy neighbor as thyself, unless thy neighbor is the wrong color, wrong religion, or likes to do things with his or her naughty bits that make you feel squinky."

Oh, and then there's the part about "First, cast out the beam from thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to remove the mote from thy brother's eye."  Also kind of inconvenient, that.

And lest you think this is only a problem in the United States, Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been staunchly defending a law currently on the books in every state but Queensland and Tasmania that allows schools to expel kids if they come out as LGBTQ.

"That is the existing law," Morrison said.  "We are not proposing to change that law to take away the existing arrangement that exists."

Which is about as articulate as Donald Trump's comment that Hurricane Florence "was one of the wettest we've ever had from the standpoint of water." 

As an aside, where the hell are we finding these politicians, anyhow?  Back in the day, it seemed like at least they could put together a grammatical sentence, even if what that sentence contained wasn't necessarily something I agreed with.

Oh, but I'd forgotten about Dan "Mr. Potatoe" Quayle, who once said that we should be optimistic, because "things are more like they are now than they ever have been."

Never mind.

What I honestly don't get about this is how often discrimination rests on religious views, when you hear "mercy" and "charity" and "love" as being some of the cardinal virtues in pretty much any religion you look into.  It's kind of appalling when the people who sing "What A Friend We Have in Jesus" and "The King of Love My Shepherd Is" in church on Sunday are the same ones who are telling gay people to roast in hell the other six days of the week.

So that's today's exercise in anger induction.  You'd think we'd have gotten past all this bigotry as a species by now.  I guess we've come a way -- when I was a kid, hardly anyone would even admit to being LGBTQ, much less make a stink about it if they were discriminated against.  But what this makes clear is that the bigots aren't ready to give up their narrow-mindedness without a fight... and that we still have a long way to go.

***********************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is something everyone should read.  Jonathan Haidt is an ethicist who has been studying the connections between morality and politics for twenty-five years, and whose contribution to our understanding of our own motives is second to none.  In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics, he looks at what motivates liberals and conservatives -- and how good, moral people can look at the same issues and come to opposite conclusions.

His extraordinarily deft touch for asking us to reconsider our own ethical foundations, without either being overtly partisan or accepting truly immoral stances and behaviors, is a needed breath of fresh air in these fractious times.  He is somehow able to walk that line of evaluating our own behavior clearly and dispassionately, and holding a mirror up to some of our most deep-seated drives.

[If you purchase the book from Amazon using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to supporting Skeptophilia!]