Evidence matters

Quite possibly the single most dangerous and egregiously misinformed article I have ever laid eyes upon in a peer-reviewed publication is Holmes et. al.'s "Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, power and fascism". I've been meaning to write a blog post about it for ages, but I still haven't been able to finish the paper because reading it makes me want to murder kittens by the dozen... Luckily, Doctor Spurt over at Effortless Incitement has produced a great post on just how deeply idiotic and dangerous the paper really is.

Doctor Spurt even alleges to have read the paper *twice*. Verily, the Doctor has a stronger stomach than I.

Open access, under attack

I like open access. In my opinion, the serials crisis is an absolute travesty and, despite my 'capitalist' instincts, the spectacle of huge companies making profits from the efforts of academics who (a) are not in the companies' employ and (b) are funded (largely) by taxpayers, utterly disgusts me. So it rather pisses me off that the august Nature magazine (which, I should note, I have difficulty accessing because my institution can't afford the subscription fee) has published a bloody screed against PLoS, the best known open access suite of journals. The screed opens thusly:

Public Library of Science (PLoS), the poster child of the open-access publishing movement, is following an haute couture model of science publishing — relying on bulk, cheap publishing of lower quality papers to subsidize its handful of high-quality flagship journals.

Sigh. I'd respond myself, but I doubt I could be objective. Luckily, Living the Scientific Live has criticized the article at length and Blog Around the Clock has compiled a list of blog reactions.

Public service announcement: Your brain lies to you

Samuel Wang and Sandra Aamodt (authors of Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life) have a fairly interesting and useful piece in the NYT entitled "Your Brain Lies to You". None of this will be new to those familiar with the heuristics and biases research literature, but the article is certainly useful as a 'public service announcement': it's important to popularize the finding that we are fallible, liable to lapses of memory and subject to all sorts of biases. A representative paragraph from the article:

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer’s hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man’s curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don’t remember how you learned it.

(See also: Wang and Aamodt's blog and their talk at Google).

Freedom to blog

This isn't a political blog, but I've written about freedom of expression before and as a blogger, I care quite a bit about the freedom to blog. So I find it deeply upsetting that in numerous countries bloggers are in fact in jail for airing their opinions. As an article in this week's Economist explains:

Security officials who once scoffed at blogs, or ignored them completely in favour of bigger and more conspicuous targets, are now bringing their legal and other arsenals to bear. A common move is to expand media, information and electoral laws to include blogs. Last year, for example, Uzbekistan changed its media law to count all websites as “mass media”—a category subject to Draconian restriction. Belarus now requires owners of internet cafés to keep a log of all websites that their customers visit: in a country where internet access at home is still rare and costly, that is a big hurdle for the active netizen. Earlier this year Indonesia passed a law that made it much riskier to publish controversial opinions online. A Brazilian court has ruled that bloggers, like other media, must abide by restrictions imposed by the law on elections.

The chilling effect of such moves is intensified when governments back them up with imprisonment. From Egypt to Malaysia to Saudi Arabia to Singapore, bloggers have in recent months found themselves behind bars for posting materials that those in power dislike. The most recent Worldwide Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders, a lobby group, estimates their number at a minimum of 64.

For those of you who haven't read it, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty provides an overwhelmingly strong case for freedom of expression. As Mill put it:

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Follow-up: Darwin and Wallace

I blogged earlier this month about the relative fame of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. There is a very good recent article in The Guardian about the intellectual history of natural selection and Darwin and Wallace's contributions thereto. A key paragraph:

Indeed, historians argue that had it not been for Darwin, the idea of natural selection would have suffered grievously. If he had not been the first to develop natural selection, and Wallace had been the one to get the kudos and attention, the theory would have made a very different impact. 'In the end, Wallace came to believe evolution was sometimes guided by a higher power,' adds Endersby, who has edited the forthcoming Cambridge University Press edition of The Origin of Species. 'He thought natural selection could not account for the nature of the human mind and claimed humanity was affected by forces that took it outside the animal kingdom.'

(Via: RichardDawkins.net).

Reports from TAM

I'm slowly recovering from my huge disappointment at not being able to attend TAM 6... So how was the meeting this year? Well, I've come across four blog reports so far:

1. I posted Not Totally Rad's reaction already. (Bottom line: Neil deGrasse Tyson's talk was amazing).
   
2. Steven Novella shares his thoughts about TAM. (Bottom line: meetings of this kind are important and the skeptical movement is on the brink of entering the mainstream).
   
3. Phil "The Bad Astronomer" Plait summarizes his TAM experience. (Bottom line: Randi is Amazing, it was the best meeting ever and there were lots of red headed women).
   
4. Evan Bernstein also blogs his TAM memories. (Bottom line: it was great and the SGU panellists were treated like celebrities).
   

There will no doubt be more of these reminiscences coming out in the next week or so, I'll probably do a fellow-up post. Oh, and I'm so going to TAM 7. I'm going to beg, save, steal, do whatever it takes. I will be there.

Cephalopods are awesome

I'm on record saying cephalopods are amazing and everything I've learnt about them since has confirmed me in this view. The fantastic Carl Zimmer asks in a just-released Slate piece: "How smart is the octopus?" The answer, in short, is 'very smart, if not necessarily in human terms'. Zimmer reports on a paper that even claims octupi are conscious (in a limited or "primary" way). If you haven't seen the TEDTalk I posted earlier, have a look and also check out the YouTube videos Zimmer links to.

Ken Ham is a wackaloon

You have to love PZ Myers, even if he's sometimes a tad too militant. PZ's latest achievement is to get Ken Ham (you know, the dolt behind Answers in Genesis) to complain about PZ insulting him. PZ then gets really creative (with the help of a thesaurus, no doubt), he calls Ham an

airhead, an ass, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse.

Indeed. Oh, and check out the comments on PZ's post, they're just as 'direct'...

Who's the greatest modern thinker?

Stephen Dubner (co-author of Freakonomics) asks his readers an interesting question: Who do you think is the greatest modern-day thinker? As I'm writing this, there are almost 500 answers (mostly utterly crazy suggestions, like Ayn Rand or Jacques Derrida).

The question, it seems to me, is pretty much unanswerable, and it all revolves around how you define, "greatest", "modern-day" and "thinker". But that doesn't mean I can't have a go for the hell of it... (Please don't take this too seriously).

Taking "thinker" broadly as anyone who has written non-fiction books or articles, but excluding mathematicians (who I don't know nearly enough about to have an opinion) and leaving "greatest" vaguely defined as 'making important contributions,' then...

If "modern thinker" is defined as "after the scientific revolution started in c. 1543", I'd say Charles Darwin, without a doubt. (With Newton as a close second, and Hume in the running). If "modern thinker" is restricted to the 20th century, I'd say Einstein and then John von Neumann. If "modern thinker" is only those currently living, I have no idea, it's far too soon to tell.

As I mentioned above, a bunch of commentators gave deeply silly answers. Rand? Ron Paul? Alan Greenspan? Malcolm Gladwell? Bill Gates? Christopher Hitchens? Michel Foucault? Jacques Derrida? I think not. And with all due respect to Pinker and Dawkins, they're great communicators and synthesizers of other people's ideas, but neither has made original contributions even remotely comparable to, say, an Einstein.

(Via Marginal Revolution).

Darwinian pick-up lines

I just came across an old post of Rebecca's at Skepchick that's seriously not to be missed... it's the Top 10 Darwinian Pick-up Lines. A teaser: "Trust me baby, my selection is ALL natural"... Hold out for the winner, it's a real gem. (This link is not for the prude, by the way).

I'm SO going to try one of these if the opportunity arises!

10 Problems with Memetics

As I have mentioned before, I have never been a fan of memetics: it always struck me as a potentially interesting redescription, but not as a genuine causal theory of culture. I don't think I hate it as much as Greg from Neuroanthropology, though. He thinks memetics "is nonsense on stilts on skates on thin ice on borrowed time (apologies to Bentham), as deserving of the designation ’science’ as astrology, phrenology, or economic forecasting." And he has 10 reasons (including one drawn from yours truly) to back up his position: check out his article.

I do think Greg takes it a bit too far occasionally. Poisoning the well with respect to Susan Blackmore isn't fair and I don't think she's as bad as Greg lets on (when she's not waffling about memetics). She came across as perfectly sensible when she was interviewed on Point of Inquiry, for example. That said, memetics deserves all the flak it gets.

(Hat tip: Simon Halliday)

ID is dumb

"Even the theology, moreover, would be hobbled by contradictions. Intelligent design awkwardly embraces two clashing deities—one a glutton for praise and a dispenser of wrath, absolution, and grace, the other a curiously inept cobbler of species that need to be periodically revised and that keep getting snuffed out by the very conditions he provided for them. Why, we must wonder, would the shaper of the universe have frittered away thirteen billion years, turning out quadrillions of useless stars, before getting around to the one thing he really cared about, seeing to it that a minuscule minority of earthling vertebrates are washed clean of sin and guaranteed an eternal place in his company? And should the God of love and mercy be given credit for the anopheles mosquito, the schistosomiasis parasite, anthrax, smallpox, bubonic plague...? By purporting to detect the divine signature on every molecule while nevertheless conceding that natural selection does account for variations, the champions of intelligent design have made a conceptual mess that leaves the ancient dilemmas of theodicy harder than ever to resolve."
- Frederick C. Crews, "Saving Us from Darwin".

A cure of alcholism (in rats)

There is a fascinating article about a promising looking new treatment for alcoholism in the latest edition of PNAS. Sebastien Carnicella and colleagues demonstrate in their paper, "GDNF is a fast-acting potent inhibitor of alcohol consumption and relapse", that administering glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (a kind of protein) to the ventral tegmental area (part of the reward circuit) of rats rapidly eliminates alcoholism. Interestingly, after multiple injections of GDNF over a couple of weeks, the rats didn't relapse, even when alcohol was freely available. Promising as this looks, it is important to be careful about extrapolating from animal models to humans: many promising treatments fail to transition from basic science to clinical application.

The abstract:

Previously, we demonstrated that the action of the natural alkaloid, ibogaine, to reduce alcohol (ethanol) consumption is mediated by the glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) in the ventral tegmental area (VTA). Here we set out to test the actions of GDNF in the VTA on ethanol-drinking behaviors. We found that GDNF infusion very rapidly and dose-dependently reduced rat ethanol, but not sucrose, operant self-administration. A GDNF-mediated decrease in ethanol consumption was also observed in rats with a history of high voluntary ethanol intake. We found that the action of GDNF on ethanol consumption was specific to the VTA as infusion of the growth factor into the neighboring substantia nigra did not affect operant responses for ethanol. We further show that intra-VTA GDNF administration rapidly activated the MAPK signaling pathway in the VTA and that inhibition of the MAPK pathway in the VTA blocked the reduction of ethanol self-administration by GDNF. Importantly, we demonstrate that GDNF infused into the VTA alters rats' responses in a model of relapse. Specifically, GDNF application blocked reacquisition of ethanol self-administration after extinction. Together, these results suggest that GDNF, via activation of the MAPK pathway, is a fast-acting selective agent to reduce the motivation to consume and seek alcohol.

Blogging epidemic

It seems I am responsible for a blogging epidemic among my friends... no fewer than four of my friends have taken up blogging, and another has returned to it after an absence. I do love those social epidemics. So, the run down:

I mentioned Dave Ansara's blog, Quid Pro Quo, already, but will note Dave has already produced a bunch of interesting posts. If South African politics is even remotely on your radar, read his blog!

Wim Louw, an honours student in philosophy at UKZN has started a blog entitled the little book of capoeira. Don't hold the title against him, he's young and obsessed with Capoeira. He's just started, but blogs about cognitive science and related fields.

The person who's returned to blogging is Simon Halliday, an old friend from my Cape Town days. Simon is a very interesting guy: he started out doing drama in his first year, but then switched directions and ended up with masters degrees in Economics and Creative Writing from UCT. Currently, he's doing his Ph.D at the University of Siena in Italy. His blog is called Amanuensis and covers a lot of ground, but particularly economics, literature, politics and general science. (Warning: reading this blog exposes you to occasional poetry).

Another very interesting friend who has started a blog is Mark Oppenheimer, a friend from Cape Town with degrees in philosophy and law. Mark's blog, Liberty Addiction, covers his interests in ethics, film, photography and more.

Last but certainly not least is David Spurrett with Effortless Incitement. Full disclosure: David is my supervisor and I will thus no doubt be accused of brown-nosing with this link. But I've been badgering him to start a blog because he has interestingly wide interests: philosophy of science, scientific skepticism, cognitive science, philosophy, experimental philosophy, neuroscience, behaviourism and, of course, radically inappropriate humor. Oh, and I've heard rumors that he's quite a clever guy...

Durban Action Against Xenophobia

Talking about xenophobia... an organization I've been involved with, Durban Action Against Xenophobia, has now put up a blog. It's aimed mainly at organizing a response to the xenophobic violence in and around Durban, so might not be of terribly wide interest. That said, please spread the word to interested parties...

(Ignore this, it's for Pagerank's benefit. Durban Action Against Xenophobia. Durban xenophobia. South Africa xenophobia).

A field day...

I know some evolutionary psychologists (to say nothing about Freudians) who would have an absolute field day with the following PostSecret:

Link love: Dave's new blog

My good friend David Ansara has just started a blog, entitled Quid Pro Quo, on politics and the media in South Africa. Dave is an intelligent and knowledgeable guy who has just finished his masters degree in South African and comparative politics at the University of Cape Town. His blog looks very promising - check it out!

Malcolm Gladwell on invention

Malcolm Gladwell is by far my favorite science journalist, and he has produced yet another fantastically interesting and well-research New Yorker piece. The article is entitled "In the Air: Who says big ideas are rare?". Gladwell takes on a somewhat neglected area of the philosophy and methodology of science, that is, the nature of scientific creativity. He argues, convincingly and at length, that the popular story of the "lone genius" without whom some or another discovery or invention would never have come about is a myth; instead, ideas are "in the air" (hence the title). "The genius," concludes Gladwell, "is not a unique source of insight; he is merely an efficient source of insight".

Evolutionary Applications

Blackwell Synergy has just launched a new journal, Evolutionary Applications, dedicated to the practical applications of evolutionary theory. The first issue has a bunch of interesting articles: an editorial outlining the journal's goals, Randolph Nesse and Stephen Stearns on evolutionary medicine and Graham Bell and Sinéad Collins on adaptation to global climate change.

Nesse and Stearns' piece is particularly worth reading, it's both convincing and important. (Nesse, as many of you will know, published an influential book with George C. Williams in 1995 entitled Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine). Essentially, Nesse and Stearns' argument is that:

an evolutionary perspective fundamentally challenges the prevalent but fundamentally incorrect metaphor of the body as a machine designed by an engineer. Bodies are vulnerable to disease – and remarkably resilient – precisely because they are not machines built from a plan. They are, instead, bundles of compromises shaped by natural selection in small increments to maximize reproduction, not health. Understanding the body as a product of natural selection, not design, offers new research questions and a framework for making medical education more coherent.

(See also: New Scientist's editorial on the new journal).

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

While I am certainly not a fan of the Templeton Foundation, they have an interesting feature on their website, the so-called "Templeton Conversation". Basically, they get together a bunch of luminaries and pose a "big question", each then responds with a short essay and debate among the participants is also possible. The latest "big question" is "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" and it's most certainly worth checking out. Among the participants are Steven Pinker, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Mary Midgley, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Kenneth Miller. No points for guessing who I agree with...