card-towers of Babel

The Evolution store in Soho, New York City.
Copyright (c) 2007 Wendee Holtcamp

So I started reading A Tale of Two Cities to Sam again tonight, with only mild protest. It has been at least a month if not more since we read it, and I opened to the chapter entitled, Monseigneur in Town, and thought I swear we've read this already. I recall distinctly how often the chapter repeats the word "Monseigneur" because it is a French word and I had no idea what the heck it was. Sam, however, didn't remember the word at all. "Is that the guy who ate the chocolate?" he asked. I had to laugh here because I remembered the scene with the guy being fed hot chocolate by four servants, but I did not recall it was the Monseigneur, but as I started reading (and yes we had read that chapter), sure enough it was the guy who had been fed hot chocolate. So I guess he IS paying more attention that either he or I thinks.

The chapter depicts the lavish wealth of the French aristocracy, which contrasts to the destitution faced by much of society at the time. It's a historical novel so although fictional it's based on historical truths. This bit made me stop short, because it reminded me of the current era a bit:

Military officers destitute of military knowledge. ... Doctors who made great fortunes out of dainty remedies for imaginary disorders that never existed... Unbelieving philosophers who were remodelling the worlds with words, and making card-towers of Babel to scale the skies with...In the outermost room were half-a-dozen exceptional people who had had, for a few years, some vague misgivings in them that things in general were going rather wrong.

Anyway, I won't get into what I see as the parallels... but needless to say, they exist. I will say the philosophers line definitely reminds me of the creationists of the day, particularly intelligent design proponents who make card-towers of Babel and try to remodel the world with their words. Dang, I think I need to use that line in my book.

I'm privy to some interesting conversations on these issues with colleagues about the great opposition to plate tectonic theory by the geologists of the day for many many years but finally the evidence overwhelmed and it became common knowledge. This contrasts sharply with the way IDists try to get their (false) "science" accepted, which has been to go directly to the public, appealing to a false argument that their "academic freedom" is being threatened. The way science works is that scientists plug away for years and years, publish in scientific journals and eventually paradigns shift.

Scientists do not get theories accepted into the public by writing popular books, having their ideas discussed in churches or by church organizations (like Focus on the Family), or getting the ideas taught in public schools before even a SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific publication has been published!!! Seriously!! And the whole debacle is made worse by the media, which often presents the "other side" as having any legitimacy. It does only as a cultural and religious debate, but not as a scientific one. There is no scientific opposition to evolution. None! And as one UT grad student said at the SBOE hearing, if he were to disprove evolution, he'd win the Nobel Prize, so bring it on! Unfortunately, intelligent design does not have any history of publication in any legitimate scientific journals. Nothing!

So here are a few interesting and ironic quotes about science from the halls of history. I use these when I teach biology, except for the last gem, which someone just shared. Enjoy!

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."
--Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

"If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one."
-Dr. W.C. Heuper of the National Cancer Institute, as quoted in New York Times April 14, 1954.

"Agassiz says that when a new doctrine is presented, it must go through three stages. First, people say that it isn't true, then that it is against religion, and in the third stage, that it has long been known."
-- Karl Ernst von Baer (1792-1876), embryologist, referring to Swiss scientist Louis Agassiz (1807-1873). Agassiz founded the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- S.D. Weitzenhoffer, in 2005

I'm rolling on the floor laughing at the last quote!!! Oh, did I mention I saw a rat or mouse in my garage the other day?! I have set a mouse trap. I hope my vegan friends don't get mad... I love mice and rats, I truly do (remember, I live-trapped such "small mammals" for many years during my undergrad and graduate research!) but I will have a cow if it crawls in my walls and croaks...

Obamaphoria!

Elephant Butte Lake, New Mexico
Copyright (c) 2005 Wendee Holtcamp

I don't know about you but I've really been digging the music lately. I normally listen to the Christian radio station at home, and channel change in the car but there have been so many good songs on the regular radio that I love right now! I've always loved music, since I was a kid. My dad had a massive record collection, including some bootleg albums - but some of my fave rock and roll and funk music: The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bootsy Collins, Rick James, Cream, New Riders of the Purple Sage (I love that name!), Fleetwood Mac, Doobie Brothers.

Anyway so now these are some of my favorite songs currently on the radio... it's so cool to always have a good upbeat song on the radio!

La Vida Loca, Coldplay
Gotta Be Somebody, Nickelback
Love Remains the Same, Gavin Rossdale
I'm Yours, Jason Mraz
So What, Pink
Better in Time, Leona Lewis
If I was a Boy, Beyonce
Hot N Cold, Katy Perry
Keeps Getting Better, Christina Aguilera

On another note, there were 2 interesting articles in the UK Telegraph. Barack Obama's vision of a scientific America By Sir Paul Nurse. After eight years of neglect, researchers are hoping the new president makes good on his promises, says Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse.

In modern times, America has led the world in scientific discovery. But since 2000, the country has seen what might be termed a scientific recession.

For five consecutive years, federal investment in science has fallen, stalling endeavour and leading to despondency among America's scientists.

Within the administration of George W Bush, scientific advice has been sidelined and subjected to sustained political manipulation Expert advisers on vital issues such as global warming, stem-cell research and the teaching of evolution have been marginalised, ignored and even removed from office..

What people don't realize who don't deal in the scientific arena daily, as I do as a science writer and as someone educated in science, the Bush administration and many Republican politicians have contributed to the decline of science and science education in our country. The fact that people actually think there's scientific controversy over evolution is a case in point. There is NO controversy among scientists! The controversy is not a scientific one, but a cultural and religious one. The state of our populace's ability to think independently, reason, and understand complex issues is at a very low level. And the Bush Admin has also taken a lot of money away from funding scientific research, conservation, and environmental concerns like global climate change. They've kept things secretive, and it does have an impact on the daily lives of scientists and conservationists around the country.

Now, finally, on the listservs I am on and have engaged on for a decade and a half there is a sense of renewed optimism. Maybe we will get some funding again! Maybe we will be able to protect our endangered species! Maybe they will stop sacrificing the legacy of our beautiful land - God's Creation - to appease corporate giants, development, mining... Sustainability IS possible! This is but one reason why so many people are experiencing Obamaphoria!! (Check out this funny dictionary of Barackisms, also in the Telegraph). Check out the video of the euphoria on the site too.

Just under half of our nation's people voted against him, too, but do not underestimate the fact that the decisive Electoral College win means that across our nation, in a decisive majority of states with more people decided that they wanted change, they believe that Hope is not just a word, and that Obama himself is a man we believe can lead us to a better tomorrow. (In a future blog I plan to address why a Christian can vote for someone who is supportive of gay rights and does not believe abortion should be illegal.)

Later in the article it also says:

What are Obama's specific pledges? First, to increase federal funding for science and engineering, which has halved as a share of GDP since 1970. He has promised to double the research budgets of the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the other key agencies over the next decade, supporting high-risk, high-reward research in computing, biotech, nanotechnology and other fields.

Second, Obama has promised to invest in education, guaranteeing students access to a strong science curriculum and increasing the importance of maths and physics in schools.

Third, there is his plan for a green economy: a promised investment of $150 billion over 10 years to create five million new jobs.

Obamalujah! I keep having to pinch myself. I am still in the shock and awe stage! Things are gonna change, for the better.

media bias, science & critical thinking

This is just sad, but this is the best grizzly picture I could find! This was a grizzly eating vegetation in Yosemite National Park. Everywhere I go, I see bears. I think they're my totem animal! I have seen them in Alaska, at Glacier NP, at Yosemite, at Yellowstone, oh and the black bears I saw when writing an article on them in Louisiana...and then I studied grizzlies when I was at A&M grad school (see below)!
Copyright (c) 2007 Wendee Holtcamp

Since someone commented on bias in the media on my last post, I want to start talking about this issue a bit more because it's near and dear to my heart. When I spent 2 years earning a Information Technology in Science - ITS - Certificate from Texas A&M (a collaboration of the Departments of Education and Department of Science), critical thinking was my main interest. (I worked in Larry Griffing's lab studying the behavior of grizzly bears at McNeil River, Alaska via remote camera, before transferring to Rice).

While working on the ITS Certificate, which was part of my doctoral studies, I developed an "Evolution in Action" Excel workbook. I then used this tool to teach my Biology students at Kingwood College (now Lonestar College) scientific/critical thinking skills and also to introduce students to evolution. Students would watch video of grizzly bears engaged in various behaviors, including fishing for salmon, fighting with one another, and infanticide (in this case, a male bear killed a female bear's cub), while thinking about the questions, "Why might aggressive behavior have evolved in grizzlies? Is the reason different for female versus male bears?"
(I just uploaded it here - Evolution in Action. It's an Excel file and the link will open a window asking you to open in the browser or to save it to your computer where you can view it). After developing the workbook and using it in class, I did a study analyzing whether the workbook helped enhance student critical thinking (see my publication, "Grizzly Bears, Evolution, and Critical Thinking: Analyzing a Scaffolding IT for Teaching").

The workbook involves several different exercises but the last one was to analyze various print sources of information on grizzly bears - book chapters from various authors, a website, a scientific publication. There's a lot of controversy and misinformation surrounding grizzlies! After reading each source, they would then answer the following questions (below), and fill out a worksheet that assigned numerical values to their answers. This enabled them to rank the reliability of that source of information.

These are the questions:

• Are the authors' names and credentials listed on the publication?
  
  
• Does the info source provide more than one viewpoint or hypothesis?
  
  
• Are specific studies mentioned or cited in the text? (Do not give a YES answer if the article contains general phrases like "studies indicate" or "research shows" unless the article/source explicitly mentions a specific study and researcher mentioned).
  
  
• Does the paper test a prediction?
  
  
• Are the authors trying persuade you to accept a particular viewpoint?
  
  
• When was it published? (decreasing points for older pubs)
  
  
• Is the article or website sponsored by a company or by advertising?
  
  
• Do the authors blatantly or implicitly insult other perspectives?
  
  
• Does the perspective presented seem exaggerated or extreme?
  
  
• What is the purpose of the publication? (inform/share data; Disclose information; persuade; sell or entice)

By answering those questions and entering a numerical value (explained in the workbook) to each answer, they would come up with a numerical way to judge and analyze the reliability of a particular news source. I'd love to develop this tool more and make it available to the public. It's far from complete or fully comprehensive, but it's a start. (The video links won't work in the online version, unfortunately, and you have to click on the tabs at the bottom to get to the different "Exercises.")

I also have some views on objectivity in journalism that may differ from the typical J-school trained journalist because, well, I'm not one. I'm a science-educated writer who covers wildlife, the environment, conservation, and outdoor travel. I outlined some of my thoughts on Objectivity in Journalism when I gave an invited lecture at the University of North Texas' 2007 Nature Writing Symposium.

Magazine writing, especially for magazines mostly published by nonprofit organizations, don't necessarily hold to the same standards as, say, the strict guidelines of the New York Times. There is a difference between being fair and truthful, and doing the whole "present both sides" thing which in many ways can be a sham, particularly when journalists present two or more sides on an issue when there are NOT two sides! Do we give equal time to lunatics or fringe ideas? Doing so only makes their ideas seem more accepted unless they're clearly labeled as such.

But worse, in my opinion, is when a news source gives the illusion of being unbiased, but clearly is! I believe that sources providing information should put their biases out there on the table. Most know Fox News has a conservative bent -but they don't tell this clearly to their listeners. Some people believe the media has a liberal bias but present information as if they don't. It is a problem when news sources act "as if" they are not biased but bias creeps in.

We should know that a magazine published by a wildlife nonprofit is going to not run certain stories, but that does not mean the stories they run are not accurate, fact-checked, and presented with attention to both sides of an argument. However they may come out a bit more persuasively argued toward one side of the argument than another. But when the same information is presented in say a conservation magazine, the New York Times, and various other sources of news and information but not in a right-leaning news source, that is when you should be concerned that maybe the story has merit. There's no doubt that while the internet has revolutionized the world into an information age, one of the downfalls is that so much information can be overwhelming and it becomes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Another thing is that there are a lot of "thinktanks" and organizations with great-sounding names ("Center for Truth" - I made that up - but that kind of thing) - but in reality they are funded by particular groups with very specific agendas. When they're quoted in newspaper articles without that article clearly addressing this issue, it passes along "expert" quotes when that expert may just be paid to spout off a certain perspective (and most likely they believe it too, or they probably would not work for that organization). But sometimes, it takes digging to find these things out, and most people don't take time to dig. Who has time? But with the internet it's often not that difficult. Sometimes journalists must do FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests - demanding governments release information that should be public but that they don't want to release - and then writing expose's to expose some of the more "hidden agendas." FOIA requests are not a tool your average citizen typically uses, but why you should indeed pay attention to the more prestigious newspapers and news sources. They do their homework and have high standards. They're not perfect, but in my experience, journalists take great pride in their work and being the "4th branch" of a healthy democracy.

I think that bias still does creep into supposed bastions of objectivity like the NY Times, but that does not mean that one should not still read it and pay attention. Just have a critically thinking mind when doing so. Those who pretend to not have bias may just be fooling themselves. We all have biases. The trick is to do our best to understand and make clear our biases, even while still doing our best to write truthfully and accurately. I believe it's better to be clear about biases than to pretend one does not have them.

However when it comes to science - and this is one of the most misunderstood things in society I believe - the whole field of science, the scientific method and the whole process of science (developed during the Scientific Revolution) was designed specifically to REMOVE bias from the the practioner's research so that scientists could reveal facts and ultimately truth. In science, this is done through the various things, including the scientific method, double-blind experiments, the use of statistics to analyze data (rather than merely philosophical reasoning and logic), and the peer-review system of scientific publication.