Universum

Some iPhone backgrounds, for those of you who like that sort of thing.

Or you could just take the whole thing together.

Lovely!

Happy Birthday, Origin

Today marks the 150^th birthday of the initial publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The gorgeous, fully-illustrated, sixth-edition copy of Origin that the missus gave me last Christmas.

I think it's time for a read.

"A theory about a thing does not change the thing the theory is about."

B.F. Skinner said it well in Beyond Freedom and Dignity: "A theory about a thing does not change the thing the theory is about." A couple of times I saw Skinner strolling through Harvard Yard. He didn't move like a robot because he espoused determinism.

—Robert M. Price,
Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today’s Pop Mysticisms

I'm currently a subscriber to both Skeptic and Free Inquiry, and while perusing the August/September 2009 edition of the latter (I'm a little behind on my reading, as I cycle to and from work eight months of the year, so I don't have my hour-long public transit commute until November), I happened across an op-ed by Tibor Machan.

Lots of important people in the sciences and philosophy say that free will—the human capacity to think and do either this or do that—is a myth, a delusion. Some go so far as to recommend revamping the legal system and our ideas of ethics or morality so that concepts of guilt, innocence, responsibility, and so forth can be abandoned. No one is guilty of anything, they hold, since no one could have done anything other than what he or she did.

Okay, I'm basically on board with Machan at the beginning. I would have added emphasis to make it "the human capacity think and do either this or do that", as clearly humans have the tendency to do some things or do other things, and it's the choice of one or the other that you're after—but I'm picking nits. The real problem comes in when he says, "Some go so far as to recommend . . . that concepts of guilt, innocence, responsibility, and so forth can be abandoned. No one is guilty of anything . . . ." This strikes me as a bit of a straw man, for I'm unaware of anyone who says any such thing. It is, of course, possible that he simply misunderstands the determinist position—but if so, what's he doing writing an op-ed about it? He's presenting an argument that no one is really making to push the idea that determinists are going to release murderers and rapists from prison to kidnap your children.

There are people pushing for reform in the penal system, sure—the problem is right there in the name! Many free will sceptics are against punishment for crimes, yes; they are, however, in favour of prevention of crimes and reformation of criminals. If a bear wanders into town and mauls a child, any free will that the bear may or may not have is irrelevant. We don't punish the bear; we either lock it up someplace it can't harm anyone or we put it down. Unless you're a hopeless barbarian monster you're not in it to hurt the bear like it hurt you, you're in it to prevent someone else from being hurt. That's the whole idea.

This is just one notion that follows from the denial of free will in human life. What are some others?

Regret is out; so is pride. Apologies are pointless since no one could have acted better than she or he did. Certainly no one can be blamed for anything. Or praised. Just as it makes no sense to blame the weather for being unpleasant, even horrible, or to praise it for being great, so none of the awful stuff that people do can be blamed on them.

So?

This is one big argument from final consequences. "Well, if that's true, then . . . well life isn't as good as I thought it was!" Although it's possible (though certainly debatable) that all of these statements are correct, that doesn't matter. Maybe free will doesn't exist, and maybe it would be good if it did. The fact that free will might be nice to have and that some people want it has no causal relationship with the existence of free will. Unless you're C.S. Lewis, that is.

Imagine someone runs up to you frantically and, with a crazed look in his eye, yells: "Don't you realise that if you don't think we're immortal, we're all going to die?" What can you say to that. The fact that death is a bad thing in no way means that it is avoidable, or that sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly proclaiming that you don't believe in it will make it go away. Sure, you may think that it sucks that you don't have full control of every aspect of your inner and outer life, but that says nothing about the reality of the situation.

That means, also, that editorials . . . are equally nonsensical, gobbledygook . . . .

Well, you're certainly convincing me! But I'm just being a jerk. Here's the whole sentence:

That means, also, that editorials that congratulate some and those that chide others are equally nonsensical, gobbledygook, if there is no free will. . . . Artists must do their art, murderers must do their murders. No alternative to any of it is possible, just as the way a river runs is how it must run.

Murderers?! Oh noes! He must mean that determinists feel that art and murder are equally legitimate occupations. This is, of course, a false analogy, and an example of the is-ought fallacy: just because artists do art and murders do murder, doesn't mean that we wish it so. In fact, an artist is defined as a person who creates art, and a murderer is defined as a person who commits murder. By their very definitions, artists must do their art and murders must do their murders.

But of course, alternatives are possible. Even in a fully determined world, it is possible to stop a murder from taking place, if you define "stopping a murder" as taking an action that prevents a murder from occurring when the intention of the other party was to commit murder! It may be true that there is only one possible way that things will turn out, but no one involved knows what that is. We're not talking about fatalism, here!

Most difficult to swallow, though, is that none of what I am saying or writing here—or anything anyone else has said or written or is saying or writing or ever will say or write—is any more true or false than is the noise made by ocean ways.

And here is where the author of this particular editorial flies the idiocy flag for all to see. You're right, Tibor Machan, I do find that difficult to swallow. I happen to believe that there is one reality that we all share, and that any given proposition is either true or it is false, regardless of whether anyone ever knows it. Oh, I can guess what he's getting at, but he seems to be implying here that if we don't have free will, 2 + 2 does not equate to four. I believe that he means to say that writing down "2 + 2 = 4" is no more meaningful, in some magically objective way, than nonsense such as "FfffFWWdl;'6"; we interpret the symbols, and their meaning is what is true. But we are here, determined or not, to give the symbols meaning, to internalise them, and to analyse their truth or falsity. But even if it never occurred to anyone that water were composed of two hydrogen atoms bound to an oxygen atom, it would be true nonetheless—and if explorers one day encounter a random collection of rocks strewn across the regolith of some distant world that seems to say "water is H₂O", that would be true, regardless of whether it was scribbled there by a mind governed by a will or by the mindless action of natural forces. If there is someone there to interpret it, then it has meaning.

Free or not, we're still here.

At the risk of being accused of ad hominem, I'll admit that this editorial reminded me most of a creationist screed, tying "evilution" to Nazis and Stalin. It's filled to bursting with arguments from final consequences, is-ought fallacies, and silly straw men for Machan to knock down.

Although I'm probably not an out-and-out determinist in the classical sense, I don't believe in "free" choice; there may be some quantum randomness that goes on—although most of it probably comes out in the wash, and you can't get from randomness to choice in any way that I know—but I don't believe in the "ghost in the machine" sort of free will that the religious peddle to get their god his get-out-of-the-problem-of-evil free card.

We are free to make the choices that we will make. These choices are determined by our genes, by our upbringing, by our environment, and perhaps a little by random chance—but they are determined by our nature: by what we really want. We can't change that. So we make the choices that we make because we want to make them. And if making those choices is what we want, then what are we complaining about.

Determinism, or bound will, or whatever it may come to be called when we take quantum randomness into account ("randeterminism"?—perhaps not) is a theory that accounts for whatever choice-making goes on, and from what I can see the only alternative is magic. "A theory about a thing does not change the thing the theory is about." If we don't have free will, that doesn't change who or what we are: it explains how we come to make the choices that we make. It seems to me a lovely theory that makes clear our place in the wonderful, unfolding dance of the cosmos.

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

—Douglas Adams

Inspiration and Awe

These are the things that science gives me. My pursuit of scepticism has brought me many a belly-laugh, at my own and others' expenses, but until I began my layman's study of science I had never, ever felt such deep, unabashed wonder at the marvels of the universe.







Via Symphony of Science.

(I had hoped to post this before Professor Myers did, but the brigand beat me to it! I'm sure that he's also on their mailing list.)

Another Reason Not to Blame Darwin

Concise Arguments Against Irreducible Complexity

I'll post these here for quick reference. It is easy for such things to be buried in PZ's many, many posts.

Antecedent versions of the current pathway may have 1) had different functions (the exaptation explanation), 2) had less stringent requirements for function because other physiological functions had less specific demands (the coevolution explanation), or 3) had redundant or alternative paths to the final output of the pathway (the scaffolding explanation). IC, even as defined by the author of the concept, is no obstacle to evolution.

(Emphasis mine.)

Via Pharyngula.

Creationist Canards

ca⋅nard
[kəˈnɑrd; Fr. kaˈnar]
–noun, plural -nards [-ˈnɑrdz; Fr. -ˈnar]
1. a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.

Source: Dictionary.com.

Q1. If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there not any other intelligent beings that have evolved from other animals? Should we not see more "intelligent beings" evolving from other species?

Q2. After centuries, we have yet to reproduce any artificial system that simulates the functioning of the brain. Is it possible for such an complex organ to have evolved from simpler organisms? how could this have been possible?

The first question is an evolutionary relative of the old Monkey Gambit: "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" The quickest answer to this is to say that humans didn't evolve from monkeys, and no one but an ignorant buffoon (read: creationist) would use that particular antecedent when forming a conditional statement. Those of us acquainted with formal logic recognise that the consequent is irrelevant in the face of a false antecedent.

Humans are members of the ape (Hominoidea) superfamily of primates, while monkeys are of either the old world (Cercopithecoidea) superfamily or the new world (Platyrrhini) parvorder; you can find a useful hierarchy here. Neither one evolved from the other: they both evolved from a common ancestor. Both Q1 and the Monkey Gambit are akin to asking: "If my cousin is my great-grandmother, why do I like iced cream?" It's complete nonsense.

However, we can meaningfully address the statement if we graciously assume that what the inquisitor meant was: "If humans and monkeys both evolved from earlier primates, why are there not any other intelligent beings that have evolved from the ancestors of other animals?"

PZ Myers deals with this quite well in his response, but I wanted to add a couple of things:

1. It would seem that primates were particularly well suited to evolve intelligence, as it is an important component (along with manual dexterity) of tool-making, which increases fitness.
2. Although it seems that we are currently more-or-less alone in the intelligence department*, our ancestors had several other competitors for the intelligence niche: homo neanderthalensis comes to mind. Happily for us, our ancestors won!
3. Regardless of the species, anyone who developed to a comparable cognitive level as we have would be left wondering the same thing. If an ecosystem were to produce several species capable of self reflection, one of those species would by necessity come first; until the arrival of its intellectual contemporaries, it would be left to wonder why only it had evolved intelligence.
4. This is also a clear case of what I've heard called the "lottery fallacy", which is very popular with creationists: although it is exceptionally unlikely that any given person will win the lottery, it is much more likely that someone will. Although it is perhaps unlikely that any given animal's descendants will evolve intelligence, it is much more likely that some animal's descendants will evolve such a thing.

As for Q2, PZ† did an admirable job, but I wanted to add one thing.

"After centuries, we have yet to reproduce any artificial system that simulates the functioning of the brain." No more than 106 years ago, this statement justifying the irreproducibility of an animal's capacity for intelligence could have been equally used to testify to the irreproducibility of any given animal's capacity for flight.

The fact that something hasn't been done doesn't justify claiming that it's inherently impossibile any more than the fact that no explanation is currently available for something testifies to its inherent inexplicability. This is a fallacy. Although clichéd and overly simple, the idea that "there's a first time for everything" might suffice here.

Via Pharyngula.

*Although several types of birds, elephants, dolphins, and other apes show signs of quite astonishing intellectual problem-solving abilities that can't be attributed to the Clever Hans effect.

†Yes, it should be made clear that I pronounce his initials "Pee-Zed", although I'm aware that other Canadian bloggers make the exception. I've also been known to say "Zed-Zed Top".

"Detoxify toxin out!"

Toxins: still my favourite meaningless new-age scare-tactic. Now with added grammar-fail!

Local quackery.

Step Aside, Big Pharma...

...to make way for Big Sunscreen!

I've got a hankering for front-page news, and I can't seem to find my copy of the LA Times, the Washington Post, or even the Winnipeg Free Press. I guess I'll just have to settle for my trusty copy of the Fabutan Observer!

Wow! Fabutan has their own newspaper? Cool! Let's take a closer look, shall we?

MELANOMA RATES ON THE DECLINE

Rates of melanoma in our key demographic, females aged 20–44, have been on a steady decline since 1980.

In case you're interested, I managed to track down the source of the graph that they use. You can find it here. While the graph is reproduced faithfully, the corresponding graph for males is missing (it isn't their key demographic). Here it is:

I was unable to find statistics that either validate or dispute their assertion that the majority of indoor tanners are aged 20 – 44, but it seems reasonable. I was able to find a study that seems to verify that the majority of tanners are female, but it is a pediatric study. Looking at both male and female trend lines for all adults, however, we see neither a marked upward or downward trend in the incidence of melanoma in females, while it's easy to make out the upward trend in the male population.

Also, melanoma is not the only variety of cancer caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

Regardless, there is no data available that lets us separate those who make use of indoor tanning beds from those who do not. Personally, I would hypothesize that any decrease in melanoma incidence may be related to increased sunscreen use, which is of course not used in the tanning bed. Let's move on.

DEFICIENT DERMATOLOGISTS

DID YOU KNOW? A recent independent Australian study showed that 87% of Australian dermatologists are vitamin D deficient by the end of summer?

I still don't! But seriously, dermatologists not getting enough vitamin D? Shouldn't they know better?

Perhaps that's why they're not getting enough vitamin D. We're given no information with regard to how deficient they are, only that they are deficient. It's possible that their alleged vitamin D deficiency could be explained by the fact that, as dermatologists, they are intimately familiar with the dangers of over-exposure to ultraviolet radiation. I briefly considered the possibility that Australian foods were not fortified with vitamin D, but it would seem that they have similar voluntary fortification programs for dairy products, and indeed have a mandatory vitamin D fortification requirement for margarine, which we lack in North America.

SUN SCARE MESSAGE
Fact or Hype?
...
In 2002, Fabutan started manufacturing their own lamps designed to closely imitate natural sunlight – allowing tanners to take advantage of what Mother Nature has already provided us with, all in a controlled environment.

Well golly-gee, that sounds great! I truly adore the naturalistic fallacy [edit: appeal to nature]! Will Fabutan also provide us with a way to get the arsenic and earthquakes that Mother Nature has already provided us with, too!

And now for the best part:

The Coppertone Girl hasn't aged well.

Why should you tan? Because Big Sunscreen doesn't want you to! I feel the need to mention that I didn't just make this up. These photographs were not doctored in any way. That's the sad part. The sad, sad, hilarious part. I assume that I don't even need to mention that Fabutan is also trying to make money, here. But I did mention it, didn't I?

BIRTH CONTROL PILLS AND INDOOR TANNING IN SAME GROUP

Uh, what? Non sequitur, much? I really don't know what to say to this. Nothing in the "article" below this headline says anything about birth control pills. Am I missing something? My sanity, perhaps?

Recent reports comparing indoor tanning and sunlight to mustard gas and arsenic are being challenged as "outrageously overhyped" by Smart Tan Association.

Oh, these allegations are being challenged by the Smart Tan Association? That sounds like a perfectly objective consumer advocacy group with the best interests of the public at heart. Oh wait, they're actually an indoor tanning lobby group and "business solution provider"? Who would have guessed?

And now for the actual science, straight from the Canadian Cancer Society:

There’s no safe way to get a tan. Just like the sun, tanning beds and sun lamps release ultraviolet (UV) rays that trigger the tanning process in the skin.

This causes skin damage, such as sunburns, premature aging and cataracts.

Also, long-term exposure to UV rays, sunburns either from the sun’s rays, tanning beds or sun lamps, can put you at greater risk for non-melanoma or melanoma skin cancers.

And here's an excerpt from their list of tanning myths:

Having a tan is healthy
No it’s not. It might make you feel good but when your skin colour changes, you’re damaging your skin and that can lead to premature aging and skin cancer. If you have to have that tan, try asunless tanning cream. It will last about a week. Just remember that when you’re using a fake tanning product, you’ll still need your sunscreen.

My tan protects me from the sun
I don’t think so! A tan offers very limited protection from sunlight or burning. Some tanning beds can expose you to five times as much radiation as the sun. So it’s definitely not a reason to be spending time in a tanning salon.

I’ll get my vitamin D by going to the tanning salon
You could but you don’t need that much exposure to UV rays. A few minutes a day of unprotected sun exposure is usually all that is needed for people to get enough vitamin D. For most people a little sunlight goes a long way. In the fall and winter, a supplement is a much safer and cheaper way to get your vitamin D.

This Fabutan advertisement is neither more nor less than a sad propaganda piece. Shame on you, Fabutan.

But seriously, watch out for Big Sunscreen: they're out to make a buck, and they don't care who they hurt!

---

Edit: This issue proved contentious. In the interest of transparency, I have left this post unaltered (with the exception of this addendum), but you can find the follow-up here.

It would have to be...

PseudO2science!

Some pseudoscience, from my recent trip south to The Mall of America. First we have something old:

Plain, old foot reflexology. Classic pseudoscience. Sigh. That sure brings me back...

Well, that's certainly neither new nor interesting. Let's move along...

An oxygen bar. Sigh again.

An... oxygen bar? Even the teetotaler in me can't appreciate that. It's too patently stupid. Claims include removal of stress and tension, reduction of allergy symptoms, headache relief, toxin removal, and a "boosted" immune system (if these last two aren't red flags, then there may be no hope for you). In other words, a bevy of subjective symptoms prone to placebo effects and several types of self-report and confirmation bias, and a couple of meaningless alt-med buzzwords for good measure.

Apparently I'm not the only Canadian with less-than-flattering things to say about oxygen bars. According to the Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists, as quoted on WebMD:

As health professionals, we cannot ethically or morally support providing oxygen therapy to those who do not require it.

Judging from WebMD, as well as several sources quoted by Wikipedia, we seem to have:

1. a general lack of evidence for any of the intervention's purported benefits; 
2. evidence (admittedly weak) that in some cases the treatment may actually be harmful! 

Well, sign me up!

As always, I welcome any comments—especially critical ones.

Here's Looking at You: The Magic of Iridology

You may have heard of iridology. If not, count yourself lucky to have avoided this little bit of quackery. It is the alternative medicine technique quick supposes that medical and psychological diagnoses can be made based solely on the inspection of the iris. It works on the same principle that allows a savvy computer technician such as myself to diagnose your hardware and software difficulties on your home computer by examining your webcam's focal device.

That is to say, iridology, like other forms of "eyology" (such as "sclerology"—also, but less commonly, "scleridology"—I swear that I'm not making these names up), is "considered pseudoscience by most medical practitioners and eye care professionals", to quote the Wikipedia entry. To put it more appropriately, it's complete, unadulterated, new-age*, woo-woo magic.

A local Winnipeg iridology clinic. Call now!

Which is why I was delighted when I heard Jane Dayus Hinch exclaim from my television set that she was taking a nervous bride-to-be to see her friend, a "renowned" iridologist. (I should defend myself parenthetically by asserting that I was busy playing Dragon Age: Origins, but Wedding SOS was playing in the background. The missus is quite fond of Slice, you see, and I was in the market for another reason to hate the network that brings us The Biggest Loser, Rich Bride Poor Bride, Trading Spouses, and The Real Housewives of Orange County—her response was: "Shut up! She's a good wedding planner!")

This "renowned" iridologist certainly caught my attention, although the idea that anyone could be a renowned practitioner of a peculiar form of magical divination that few people have even heard of seems generally absurd. How did this esteemed medial practitioner proceed? I watched, gape-jawed, as she shone a bulky, blue dollar-store flashlight in the bride-to-be's eyes, then asked her to imagine herself walking around the room in another person's shoes. Granted, the segment was likely cut down for time, but it wasn't played for comic effect.

So, ridicule aside, what is the evidence for the efficacy of iridology as a medical or psychological diagnostic technique? Here it is:

...

Yup. You guessed it: nothing! Let's try to contain our amazement, shall we? Not only is there no prior plausibility (the visible characteristics of the iris are phenotypically determined, and "locked in" before birth; neither psychological nor physical maladies—the odd screwdriver jammed into the old eyeball aside—are likely to change them), but there is no evidence to support the claims of efficacy on the part of practitioners, either!

Is iridology impossible? Perhaps not. But it is ridiculous.

*While iridology may have been invented in the seventeenth century, it was popularised in the fifties, and it qualifies as "new age" in my book.

With Utmost Love

I love my parents. I know that I'm hard on them sometimes, and I can tend to take a more combative approach when dealing with pseudoscience—especially with my family's sacred cow, alternative medicine. But I do not think that they're idiots—I truly don't—even though I can be prone to drama in this area. Dr. Steven Novella has recently summed things up quite nicely:

It is easy for anyone to be overwhelmed by an organized campaign of misinformation. I know very bright people who were blown away by Loose Change when they first saw it. I know otherwise intelligent people who just cannot handle the systematic lies and distortions of the creationists – they don’t have the background and the volumes of information it would take to tackle each false claim and logical fallacy.

The same is true of the alternative medicine and anti-vaccine movement – they have a highly developed package of propaganda, misinformation, and subtle distortions  – wrapped in a feel-good and empowering philosophy, that can easily overwhelm even an intelligent person.

I care deeply about my parents, about my soon-to-be-wife, about my friends, about Steven Novella (on whom I'll admit a I have an "intellectual crush" of sorts), and about everyone with curiosity, a thirst for knowledge, and an openness to inquiry. We all have our sacred cows, I'm sure, and we can do no more than examine our beliefs as reasonably as we can, and stand ready to abandon them when it is pointed out to us that our positions are untenable.

I don't remember if it was Bob or Jay Novella who said that he has no emotional attachment to his beliefs, but only to the process by which he arrives at them (I always had trouble getting their voices straight), but whomever it was, I think that this is a laudable goal. Although it is far from easy, it is something toward which we ought to strive.

My parents are both very intelligent, and they both have an abiding desire to learn and to know, for which I am grateful, as I share in it too, and they doubtless can take some credit for that. So let it be known that, although I will occasionally poke fun at them, and at anyone who attempts to blind me with pseudoscience (to paraphrase a song that is often stuck in my head, these days), I love them and wish them only happiness.

Have you contributed to herd immunity today?

I just received both the seasonal and H1N1 influenza vaccines.

Science!

Happy Hallowe'en!

I hope that everyone had an excellent time celebrating (or denouncing) All Hallows' Eve! Me and the missus had to come up with costumes at the last minute. She wanted to reuse an old bridesmaid dress, while I wanted to avoid "the usual": just pulling an old Celebrations costume out of medium-term storage. So we decided to go with the cliché:

Although it was a busy night (I had to be home by 01:10 to prepare for the mini-Y2K that was going to hit some software on one of my company's servers when daylight savings time ended), I still managed to squeeze in some pumpkin carving:

Although it's not from the best Zelda game of all time, I'd still call it fair for a rank amateur. But my skills pale before the mastery that I witnessed over at Pharyngula:

We miss you, Carl!