I've been a bad boy and not keeping up to date with the usual blog carnivals... A full three Skeptics Circles have passed since my last linkage, and next time round I'm the host! (If you would like to contribute, check out the guidelines and email me at ionian.enchantment@gmail.com). Anyway, here are the three missing Circles and my favorites:
The 86th edition of the Skeptics Circle was hosted at The Skepbitch. Pieces to check out: Denialism Blog on the silly notion that GM causes a non-existent disease, Respectful Insolence on penis enlargement woo, Skelliot’s Weblog on skeptical podcasts, and The Skeptical Alchemist on that Cochrane Collaboration meta-study that linked vitamin supplements to higher mortality.
The 87th Skeptics Circle was over at Action Skeptics. Check out: Whiskey Before Breakfast on the harm of woo, Polite Company on investment scams, and Greta Christina's Blog on nature vs. nurture in the gay community.
And, finally, the 88th Circle was at Jyunri Kankei. Recommended entries: Archaeoporn on Afrocentrism, the wonderful Podblack Cat on scientific education research, and Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes on the stupidity that is Ray Comfort.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
A field day...
I know some evolutionary psychologists (to say nothing about Freudians) who would have an absolute field day with the following PostSecret:
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Video: Susan Blackmore at TED
Susan Blackmore, the noted parapsychologist and author of The Meme Machine, gave an interesting talk on memetics at this year's TED conference. (The video is embedded below, click here to go directly to the video at the TED website). While I found her talk interesting and stimulating, overall, I must say I wasn't all that impressed. I have always been skeptical of memetics and "universal Darwinism" because it seems to me at best a potentially interesting rediscription of cultural phenomena, but not a genuine causal account of them. Blackmore does nothing to assuage my concerns in this regard, indeed, she reinforces them. Natural selection, as we all know and Blackmore explains, requires just three assumptions to work: variability, heredity and scarcity. In biological evolution, we know exactly how these mechanisms work even if the details of specific cases elude us. In memetic evolution, however, there is no proper general account of heredity (which ideas are imitated by whom and why) and the accounts of scarcity and variability are somewhat iffy as well. Moreover, I'm not sure the memetic research program has produced particularly interesting or fruitful results, in stark contrast to biological evolution. (I must admit, though, that I don't know the field at all well, I haven't even read Dennett's Breaking the Spell. I'd therefore be happy to stand corrected). In my view memetics is best employed to understand phenomena like the variations on poems like "One Fine Day in the Middle of the Night" or how languages change over time, not as a universal explanation for design.
Blackmore also asserts several blatant falsehoods and commits at least one serious logical error. She claims, for example, that humans are the only true imitators, that other organisms imitate hardly at all. That is utter hogwash: some of the most important ethological findings over the last couple of decades is just how smart some non-human animals are and how many species engage in "differential social learning". Indeed, chimps as well as whales and dolphins have culture and crows are veritable geniuses (pdf). Blackmore even offhandedly suggests humans are the only species that uses tools!
The serious logical error comes in when she argues, amazingly, that humans have big brains in order to copy memes. That is, she argues there is a "memetic drive" favoring brains that are better at copying memes completely independently of genetic evolution. Language, on this view, is a parasite which we only later "adapted to". How such a process is meant to operate I have no idea. Why would selfish genes altruistically code for proteins that build bigger brains to help selfish memes replicate? I can see how memetic evolution could take off as a by product of increased intelligence brought about by biological evolution; I simply can't see how memetic evolution could cause larger brains to evolve in the absence of a biological fitness benefit. If that's right, then it's simply illogical to argue the large human brain evolved in order to copy memes more effectively, and memetics therefore is not nearly as important as Blackmore suggests.
(See also: Blackmore's reflections on the TED conference on her blog).
Blackmore also asserts several blatant falsehoods and commits at least one serious logical error. She claims, for example, that humans are the only true imitators, that other organisms imitate hardly at all. That is utter hogwash: some of the most important ethological findings over the last couple of decades is just how smart some non-human animals are and how many species engage in "differential social learning". Indeed, chimps as well as whales and dolphins have culture and crows are veritable geniuses (pdf). Blackmore even offhandedly suggests humans are the only species that uses tools!
The serious logical error comes in when she argues, amazingly, that humans have big brains in order to copy memes. That is, she argues there is a "memetic drive" favoring brains that are better at copying memes completely independently of genetic evolution. Language, on this view, is a parasite which we only later "adapted to". How such a process is meant to operate I have no idea. Why would selfish genes altruistically code for proteins that build bigger brains to help selfish memes replicate? I can see how memetic evolution could take off as a by product of increased intelligence brought about by biological evolution; I simply can't see how memetic evolution could cause larger brains to evolve in the absence of a biological fitness benefit. If that's right, then it's simply illogical to argue the large human brain evolved in order to copy memes more effectively, and memetics therefore is not nearly as important as Blackmore suggests.
(See also: Blackmore's reflections on the TED conference on her blog).
Monday, June 2, 2008
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!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
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".
Friday fun: The Economist rap
'Friday' fun this week is a tad odd: it's the rap duo Psikotic on... The Economist. I won't try to explain further, that would be futile. Have a listen for yourself: Psikotic – The Economist.
(See also: The Guardian's take).
(See also: The Guardian's take).
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Encephalon #44
The 44th edition of Encephalon is up at Cognitive Daily. Recommended pieces: PodBlack Cat's review of Bonk; The Mouse Trap on belief in God as a type I error; Neuroscientifically Challenged on depression and serotonin; Not Exactly Rocket Science on cognitive enhancers; and Neuroanthropology on neuroscience and free will.
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:
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)