Monday, August 30, 2010

Satoshi Kanazawa is wrong (again)

Longtime readers of this blog may remember a post from a couple of years ago - ingeniously entitled "Crazy Kanazawa" - in which I argued LSE evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's call for a nuclear response to 9/11 was a touch... excessive. It turns out time has not diminished Kanazawa's silliness.

Responding to the astonishing Pew poll that found 18% of Americans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, Kanazawa wrote "If Barack Obama Is Christian, Michael Jackson Was White". This is such a mind-bogglingly stupid article that I suspect any summary from me will come off as a straw man, so I'll just quote Kanazawa at length:
Anybody who believes Barack Obama is Christian must also believe that Michael Jackson was white. Like other world religions, Islam not only is a religion but also comprises largely endogamous ethnic groups. When a group of individuals remain largely or entirely endogamous (marry only other members of the group and not outsiders), forming what geneticists call a deme, they become genetically distinct over time. A long history of endogamy, usually but not always necessitated by geographic or social isolation, is how genetically distinct racial and ethnic groups emerge. Muslims, both in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, are a largely endogamous ethnic group... It’s not only about who you worship; it’s also about who you marry.
One’s genome is entirely determined at the moment of conception, and absolutely nothing that individuals do during their lifetimes can alter the composition of their genes. For most of his adult life, Michael Jackson (apparently) believed he was white and (obviously) wanted to be white. He thus underwent numerous plastic surgeries to look white, and mostly looked and acted white. But his genes were still the same genes that he inherited from his black parents at the moment he was conceived, and no amount of plastic surgery could alter his genes. No matter how white his skin was, underneath he was still just as black as the day he was born.
Similarly, the fact that Barack Obama’s father was a Muslim Kenyan, descended from a long line of Muslims, will remain true until the day he dies, and nothing he ever does in his life can change half of his genes that he inherited from his father. His genes are for keeps. The fact that he has attended Christian church for the past 20 years is not going to change that. Michael Jackson looked white much longer than Barack Obama sat in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church. Obama is still as (half) Muslim as the day he was born.
Erm... right. So, firstly, Michael Jackson suffered from the skin condition vitiligo and the auto-immune disease lupus, which combined to significantly whiten his skin. Suggesting that he "wanted to be white" is mere speculation, and I'm not sure what the hell it even means to "act white".

Second and more importantly, Kanazawa apparently just doesn't know what the word Muslim means. Communicated meaning is determined by usage and convention, and in the English language the word Muslim refers to someone who believes there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad was his prophet. Someone who converted to Islam yesterday is as much a Muslim as someone who, like all their ancestors stretching back to the 7th century, was indoctrinated into Islam as a child. (I blush to have to point this out, but, as Richard Dawkins has been repeating for years, no one is born a Muslim or a Christian. We are all born atheists). Now, granted, an author is free to use stipulative definitions - giving a new or specific meaning to a term for the purposes of some discussion - but it is obvious equivocation to defend the 18% of Americans who understand "Muslim" conventionally by invoking an entirely different, stipulative, definition.

It gets worse. Much. Worse. Remember the claim that Obama is "descended from a long line of Muslims"? Rather embarrassingly for someone making an argument like Kanazawa's, that's... erm... not true. His father, Barrack Obama Sr., was raised Muslim, was non-practicing and later became an atheist. His step-father was also "non-practicing" Muslim. His mother, Ann Dunham, was either an atheist or an agnostic. His grandfather, Hussein Obama, first converted to Catholicism, and later to Islam. His grandmother, Habiba Obama also converted to Islam later in life. Yes, that's right: Obama's grandparents converted to Islam. In other words... Kanazawa's argument is so mind-bendingly stupid that it's not only invalid, misguided, misleading, and has false supporting premises, it actually has a false major premise. Such sloppiness deserves nothing but contempt and ridicule.

Hat Tip: Jeff Martin.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

African science and skepticism blogroll for August

The updated African science and skepticism blogroll for August... If you know of blogs not listed here, please let me know. Also: add it to your blog! Tweet it! Do a post like this one! (Email me, and I'll send you the HTML).

Note: I generally remove blogs that have been inactive for more than 6 months, so if you're no longer on the list and have resumed blogging, please email me.

Lazy Linking

Some stuff that may (or may not) Be Of Interest....

"Letting Go: What Should Medicine Do When It Can't Save Your Life"
  • If you haven't yet read Atul Gawande's riveting, humane, insightful and magisterial New Yorker piece, do so now. 
  • Then read Ed Yong's analysis of Gawande's writing techniques. 

  • Jerry Coyne's most excellent response to Phil Plait's much-discussed "Don't Be A Dick" speech. See also: Richard Dawkins' comment on that post, PZ Myers' takedown and Daniel Loxton's spirited defense (featuring references to actual scientific research!!). 

"The Ten Commandments of Science Journalism"
  • Excellent.
  • "Each time a journalist writes “just a theory” or “only a theory” or “merely a theory” — or insinuates pseudoscience (astrology, parapsychology, acupuncture, etc.) is a scientific theory — I cry. And Carl Sagan rolls over in his grave. And a furious hobgoblin emerges from some deep crevasse to defecate on concepts such as gravity, electromagnetism, plate tectonics, evolution, antibiotic resistance and so on."
  • Via Ed Yong.
  • Premiere quackery-smacker Ben Goldacre (again) catches the media being irresponsible (again). Cue lesson on the evidentiary status of anecdotes (something I have written about myself).

    • Johann Hari: exactly right. There are few things in the world that would yield society as large an immediate gain as the decriminalization of drugs. This is how to do it.

        • Erm... the title says it all. What do you want from me??

          • Another Hari piece. Despite what some scientifically illiterate people may think, the science is beyond question at this point. 
          • Note: Hari attributes the calving of a giant ice island off Petermann Glacier to global warming, but this is  premature

          • The Hauser misconduct case continues to unfold. Bad, very bad.

          • PZ Myers absolutely nails Kurzweil's silliness. Kurzweil responds (badly) and PZ responds to the response. Steven Novella also wades into the debate.
          • Takeaway: Kurzweil doesn't understand the brain. 

            • Finally the difference between farther and further makes sense! Also... please people, don't say "beg the question" when you mean "raise the question". Srsly. 

              • Yes, really. Even more evidence that drinking copious amounts of alcohol is good for you... 

                "Malaria, Sea Grapes, and Kidney Stones: A Tale of Parasites Lost"
                • The most excellent Carl Zimmer writing excellently about a parasite that decided to forgo a life of crime... 
                • Ok, "decided" and "crime". 

                "Why I Quit Chiropractic"
                • Not only is (straight) chiropractic sheer pseudoscience, some chiropractic schools mercilessly exploit their students (while teaching them to exploit patients).   

                • Wikipedia in all its glory. 

                • There are some real gems here. I learnt, among other things, that God has a "Holy, Righteous Penis," that apes do not exist, and that women subconsciously want to be hit and told to shut up. 

                Friday, August 27, 2010

                How bad is mainstream science reporting?

                Zoë Corbyn has a good feature in the Times Higher Education Supplement on the state of science journalism. It's a very interesting read, and does a good job of surveying the various positions people take on the quality of science journalism. I'm neither going to summarize Corbyn's article nor comment on all of it, but I do want to make a point about the clash of values between journalists and scientists. It will help if you've read the article before continuing reading here...

                Ok, welcome back. Here is the bit that I want to comment on:
                [Andy] Williams attributes much of the bad feeling that exists to a "disparity of interests". The "news values" that drive journalists - such as the need for conflict and newness - are very different from the values and motivations of scientists.
                "Scientists don't understand that it is not the job of journalism to be a science communicator. It is the job of journalism to tell a story to sell a paper or gain a bigger audience: that is a basic fact of life, but it's also the root of a lot of bad feeling.
                "So many of the things that scientists complain about in the reporting of science stem from the fact that information in the news media is not primarily for the public good. It is about turning information into a commodity to be sold in the market. That is the cause of most of the problems in one way or another ... I don't think scientists will ever like what the media do: they have a different set of motivations."
                This strikes me as exactly right. But here is my question: how do scientists and those who care about science communication influence the media's values? Assuming we science-boosters care about truth and accuracy above all else, and the media cares about commercial interests first and then only about accuracy, how can we nudge mainstream journalists in our desired direction? Why, by making it in their commercial interest to be accurate! And, it seems to me, people like Ben Goldacre are doing an excellent job of doing exactly that. Naming and shaming bad science journalism affects the reputation, and thus market position, of the newspapers thus named and shamed (and possibly even the employability of the journalists). Were it to be generally realized, for example, that one should never ever trust the Telegraph's science reporting (especially not Richard Alleyne's), its reputation would take (something of) a hit, and will thus affect its commercial interests. It may even make editors think twice about giving sports journalists a science gig.

                What I'm saying, in other words, is that an occasional pistol-whipping (what Jeremy Laurance accused Goldacre of) is one way for those of us who care about truth and accuracy to make the mainstream media care more about truth and accuracy. (By the way, see Goldacre's response to Laurance). There are, of course, other ways of improving the media's accuracy, but naming and shaming (along with more constructive criticism, of course) is one excellent way.

                Joburg Skeptics in the Pub: The Plait edition

                It's almost time for the next monthly Skeptics in the Pub Joburg, scheduled for Wednesday, September 1st at 19:30. This time round we're meeting in Sandton (full address below and see the Facebook page for more details). We'll be screening and then discussing Phil Plait's much-debated "Don't Be A Dick" speech at TAM8, which Phil posted about in three parts. Alternate views you might want to look into include Jerry Coyne's critique (see also Dawkins' comment on that post) and PZ's takedown.

                Anyway, please come join us for a beer (or three) and some skeptical goodness....

                Full address: McGinty’s Pub, Morningside Medical Mews
                4 Hill Road, Morningside
                Sandton, South Africa

                Thursday, August 26, 2010

                SA Blog Awards (again...)

                It's almost the end of the nominations phase of the 2010 SA Blog Awards and I'm currently one position away from making it to the next stage. (I'm 11th, and 10 blogs go through). So, please nominate me (and while you're at it, some of the other sciency / skeptically South African bloggers). See my previous request for nominations for more details, and here are detailed instructions:

                ‎1. Go to http://website.sablogawards.com/2010/nominate
                2. Select category 11
                3. Enter into the Blog URL dialog box one of the addresses below
                4. Repeat for the other addresses
                5. Enter your email address, insert the 'security code' and click 'Submit'

                ionian-enchantment.blogspot.com (me)
                skepticdetective.wordpress.com (Angela)
                01universe.blogspot.com (Owen)
                simonhalliday.blogspot.com/ (Simon)
                twitter.com/SkepticSheep

                To nominate my post "In Praise of Deference", do the following:
                1. Go to http://website.sablogawards.com/2010/nominate
                2. Select category 4
                3. Enter ionian-enchantment.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-praise-of-deference_03.html into the Blog URL dialog box
                4. Enter your email address, insert the 'security code' and click 'Submit'

                Thanks! (Also: HT to Mike Breytenbach on instructions). 

                Wednesday, August 25, 2010

                Video: Ben Goldacre on the nocebo effect

                This is fantastic and Must Be Watched. It's the incomparable Ben Goldacre on the amazing scientific research into the placebo and nocebo effects. The video is embedded below, or click here for the direct link.

                Tuesday, August 10, 2010

                Video: Tooby & Cosmides

                Reason.tv (a project of Reason.com, a prominent libertarian publication) has an extended interview (embedded below, or click here) with Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, two of the founders of evolutionary psychology. There are all sorts of interesting tidbits and it serves as quite a good introduction to the field. It might do some of the more extreme critics of evolutionary psychology some good to see what actual (and responsible) scholars in the field think.

                One thing: I can't say I was a fan of Cosmides and Tooby's foray into economics. The video can still be enjoyed, though.