Waterloo Ignorance Day

This looks like a lot of fun (details in the poster here).

That's the difference between science and religion. Scientists are happy to admit when they don't know something, and they view it as a challenge to learn more, while religionists like to "revel in the mystery" and just sit there.

Religion at the Science Fair

I judged my first science fair yesterday.

There were some good projects, but most of them were a bit disappointing. The main problem was the lack of originality: most were testing hypotheses that were either obviously true or uninteresting. Good original hypotheses are hard to come by, but still...

One student from a local Christian school added evangelical Christian content to her poster and report. The project concerned determining which solvent was the best to remove stains from various materials. At the end, the student thoughtfully reminded everyone that humanity is also "stained" and that the only stain remover was Jesus.

I feel very sorry for this student, who has clearly been relentlessly indoctrinated by her teachers -- and probably instructed to add this kind of unscientific postscript to her display.

More Bad Science Writing

It always amazes me how people with little or no experience doing science end up as science writers, and, worse, end up being taken seriously as science writers.

The latest example is Mary Roach, author of a book about space travel, Packing for Mars. She was interviewed on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" yesterday, and this hilarious exchange took place:

Interviewer Tony Cox: "Do you know whether or not a gun would even operate in zero gravity?"

Roach: "Oh! You know, ahh, that's something for the Mythbusters to play around with!"

(Now, there is actually a small scientific issue about whether a gun will fire in space, but it has nothing to do with "zero gravity". A gun's firing comes from a chemical reaction, and that chemical reaction needs oxygen. In an oxygen-free environment, if the gunpowder doesn't contain its own oxidizer, the gun wouldn't fire. But, as I understand it, most modern gun cartridges do contain their own oxidizers, so this would not be an issue.)

If you don't know that "zero gravity" isn't an issue for whether a gun could fire, then you have no business writing a book about space travel.

Elsewhere in the program, Steve from Florence, Kentucky said, "I understand that when people are actually put into a Faraday cage so there's no electromagnetic radiation that actually comes in contact with them, they kind of lose the ability to actually think. As I understand it, when humans go into space, this is a problem. How has NASA dealt with this?" And instead of laughing and explaining why this is nonsense, Roach goes off onto a tangent about "space stupids".

Shouldn't a good science education be a prerequisite for science writers?

Sign in the Harvard Museum

Here's a sign in the Harvard Museum of Natural History.

Wouldn't it be better to say that supernatural explanations for biological diversity were once considered and later discarded?

Why do you think it says "many scientists and religious leaders do not perceive an inherent conflict between religion and the scientific theory of evolution"? Wouldn't it be more honest to also mention that many scientists and religious leaders do perceive that religion and evolution are in conflict?

Giving a Bad Talk at a Scientific Conference

Here are some tips to give a really bad talk at a scientific meeting. The more tips you follow, the more likely you are to be memorably awful.

These are all based on talks I have witnessed.

1. Come with a retinue of students of the same ethnic background, assert a proof for a famous unsolved problem, give a proof for completely elementary simple cases and omit the proof of the main result, assert your results have been overlooked by those of a different ethnic background, insult established scientists who have recently made progress on similar problems, and have your students cheer wildly when you are done. Extra points if your talk is in "call and response" format.

2. Speak so softly that even with a microphone you are completely inaudible.

3. Speak rapidly with an extremely strong accent, and have your slides full of incomprehensible sentences that look like they were drawn randomly from a bag of scrabble tiles.

4. Sigh frequently during your talk, as if giving it is the most boring thing you can possibly imagine, and you can't wait for the damn thing to be over.

5. Give your talk by writing with a marker on overhead transparencies, and when you run out of transparencies, lick off one of the ones you already used. While it is still wet, put the slide, wet side down, on the projector so the ink mixes with your saliva and spreads all over the glass plate of the overhead.

6. Begin by insulting the organizers. State that you are so important, they should have found a larger room for you to speak in. Say that everyone else is stupid. Do not give any details, simply refer the audience to your web page.

7. Consistently point at the screen of your computer with your finger, as if you are convinced that by doing so the audience will magically see what you are pointing at on the screen of the projector.

8. Give results in your talk that are identical to those of the previous speaker. When you are questioned about it, deny that the results are the same.

I'm sure these helpful tips will create a memorable experience for you and your audience.

Mark Shea Thinks Scientists Are Stupid, Makes Gaffe

Over at Catholic Exchange, Mark Shea relates an anecdote that demonstrates, for him, that scientists are sadly lacking in emotional intelligence:

Long ago, I remember watching some film about human evolution narrated by Richard Leakey, Jr. It was interesting as such films go, but you got the sense as it went along that it explained everything at the cost of leaving everything out—like scientists in a Far Side cartoon analyzing humor.

The crowning moment of the film, for me, was when Leakey stood in front of the gorgeous twenty-thousand-year-old cave paintings in Lascaux, France and, with genuine puzzlement in his voice, wondered aloud “Why did they do this? What was the purpose?”

I had the distinct impression he would have expressed equal bafflement were he standing in the Louvre. There seemed to be a gene missing somewhere. He was a man who knew a great deal about human origins and yet, however smart he was, there was something about him that was radically out of touch with, well, what it meant to be human. You felt he needed tape on his glasses, a pocket protector, high water trousers and D&D dice in his pocket to complete the image he seemed to project with such earnest unconsciousness.


I'm a little skeptical that the film went exactly as Shea claims it did. People's memories are notoriously unreliable, and events are rewritten in brains to conform to a person's individual narrative: in this case, Shea's commitment to the Catholic faith as the essential guide to understanding the world.

But assuming Shea's memory was correct, he seems to have entirely missed the point of Leakey's question. Shea doesn't seem to have any awareness that there is a debate among archaeologists about Lascaux's purpose. Was it continuously occupied, or only visited periodically? Was it part of a shaman's ritual to improve chances during the hunt, a record of previous successful hunts, or simply a decoration? Why are there no images of reindeer, which formed a major part of the diet of the artists? Do the painted dots really represent an accurate map of the night sky, as suggested by Michael Rappenglueck?

If you have scientific training, then questions like these seem natural and interesting. If you don't, and are immersed in dogma that preaches simple answers to difficult questions, then even asking this kind of question demonstrates some moral failing. I'd wager that Leakey knows a lot more about people, and their goals, desires, and questions, than Mark Shea does.

Science Unites - Religion Divides

Here's an article about my friend Mark Gluck, a Rutgers neuroscientist who organized a joint Israeli-Palestinian conference on Alzheimer's disease. It's a good example of the best science can offer: people of different backgrounds, politics, and religion joining together to solve real problems in a spirit of scientific inquiry.

Religion and ancient animosities would have kept these scientists apart. Rational and skeptical inquiry can unite them.

Science Quiz

This is the laboratory of a Nobel-prize winning scientist, located on a street in Europe bearing the name of that scientist. Whose laboratory is it?

Do Books on Atheism Belong in the Science Section?

Here's a picture of the science section at a bookstore in Trudeau airport in Montreal:



Among the books prominently displayed are

• Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
  
  
• Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist
  
  
• Michael Onfray, In Defense of Atheism
  
  

I don't understand why these books aren't in the religion or philosophy section.

Let's Have a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

Politicians aren't scientists, but it's reasonable for the next President of the United States to be knowledgeable about basic issues in science and technology.

Today we're confronted by many threats and politicial choices for which a knowledge of science is useful. An understanding of the biological theory of evolution is helpful for dealing with the crisis of AIDS in Africa, the over-prescription of antibiotics, and the rise of resistance in tuberculosis and staphylococcus infections. A general understanding of biology more generally would be helpful in dealing with bioterrorism and stem-cell research. An understanding of physics would be useful in evaluating our priorities in outer space and the possibility of a dirty bomb attack. An understanding of chemistry and environmental science would assist our lawmakers in dealing with global climate change and ozone depletion. An understanding of astronomy would be helpful for evaluating the threat posed by meteoritic impacts. More generally, an understanding of how science works and the scientific method would help leaders to evaluate competing scientific claims and to distinguish science from pseudoscience.

Unfortunately, many of the presidential candidates seem more interested in establishing their religious bona fides then they are in dealing with science and technology. Some candidates seem positively anti-science: Mike Huckabee, for example, has shamelessly repeats an old canard about bumblebees being unable to fly by the laws of physics and seems to believe he is not a primate or descended from primates.

Today I join scientists and other science bloggers in calling for a national debate among presidential candidates on science and technology. Let's have a chance for the scientists and the public to ask the questions and hear the answers of those who would lead.