In my opinion. And I think a lot of people will agree. It is the job of the news media to report the truth in a comprehensive and unbiased fashion. The whole idea behind journalism should be to seek out what the truth of a story it and report it as such. In many cases there are two very distinct sides to an issue and the reporting should attempt show these two sides without bias.
But what happens when there are two sides only one side is truth and the other lies? Should it be the job of the media to illuminate both sides of the pseudo-debate and report each equally? This is where balance in the media really comes unstuck. Too often it seems that the media will give equal weight to ideas and view points that have no basis or support simply in the name of balance. When there is clearly a truth to one side of the issue. It should be the job of the journalist to report it as such.
This is partially a result of the attempt by journalists to avoid any share of responsibility for the information they provide. As one Journalist recently said.
"Reporters are messengers – their job is to tell, as accurately as they can, what has been said, with the benefit of such insight as their experience allows them to bring, not to second guess whether what is said is right”.
What a load of rubbish. As long as Journalists are allowed to hide behind this kind of reasoning. They can distance themselves from any negative consequences that may result from the dissemination of bad information. By the very fact that they are providing information to the public. Information that may be complicated and have the potential to impact lives. They have a responsibility to make sure that the information has some real truth behind it.
Journalistic laziness is also a contributor to this problem. Because of the speed of the news cycle and the competition between reporting sources. There is a tendency for information to be reported as quickly as it is obtained without much effort put into ensuring it's veracity or worth. This leads to the publication and dissemination of bad, and possibly wrong, stories and reports. If a little more effort were put into fact checking and verification. I'm sure it would lead to stories of far higher quality and accuracy.
Probably one of the most prevalent forms of bad reporting. Is the creating of a false spectrum on an issue. This happens often in the reporting of stories relating to health and medicine.
A good example is some of the coverage of the vaccine autism link in the US. On one side of the issue are some parents and children with autism. On the other side is the medical community and the now more than a decade of research that shows conclusively there is no link between vaccines and autism. The correct way to report this story is to say what the evidence shows. The way it is most often reported is a parent will appear and tell their heart wrenching story of dealing with an autistic child. Followed by a few minutes of some random doctor or official saying that the link between vaccines and autism doesn't exist.
There are not two sides to this story. The truth is clear and should be reported as such. By not taking this approach the media surely must share some of the blame for spreading the false information that in this case is costing actual lives.
In conclusion. The media has an obligation to the public to ensure that the information they provide is accurate and is the truth. They can and should be held accountable for the dissemination of bad and harmful information to the public.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Life may have started in ice.
It has been a long accepted idea that the beginnings of life played out in a warm ocean. The so called primordial soup. But recent research suggests that life may have got going in pockets of water trapped in ice.
The beginnings of life is a real interesting topic. There are a few things we know for sure. Life does exist. Well actually thats about all we know for sure about where life came from. There are several possibilities for the origin of life on earth. I think I'll briefly go through a few here.
Extra Terrestrial
The possibility exists that life came to earth from space. It could have come here in the form of microbes or other such replicators on an asteroid. It may have come from mars. It may have come from another solar system. This is an idea that is gradually losing support tho. Finding life elsewhere in our solar system, or out in the galaxy, that resembled our own would give more weight to this theory.
Intelligently designed
Now to be clear. When I say that life on earth could be intelligently designed. I mean designed by either an alien biological intelligence or an artificial intelligence. Not an omni present, all powerful and wholly fictitious sky magician. The possibility that life on earth was started by an intelligence is intriguing and may be impossible to ever completely rule out. It is possible that an intelligence of some type seeded our planet about 4 billion years ago with some type of replicating molecule. Or they may have jumped ahead and gone for full blown life right away.
It seems pointless to guess at the motives of such an agent. But it's fun to do it anyway. So I'm gonna.
It might be that they are running a large, long term experiment of some kind. They may simply have thought that the earth would be better if there was life here. They may have been trying to spread their own biology out into the universe. Or they may have done it with the hope that some species emerge that may be suitable to serve as their slaves.
The reason I said that this may be impossible to disprove is that it is hard to imagine a way that we could distinguish life that arose here out of non-life. From life that came here from somewhere else. If we discovered life elsewhere in the universe that was similar to our own. Then we may be able to infer a relationship. But even if life elsewhere is different. Independent origins don't necessarily mean that our life arose on earth. The problem is that early forms of life leave no trace and so it is difficult, and maybe impossible, to prove they were ever here.
Terrestrial Origin
Life evolved here on earth a few billion years ago. I find this to be the most reasonable explanation for the existence of life on earth. It starts with a single molecule that is capable of replication. That is it takes other molecules from its environment and makes a copy of itself. We know this can happen. It's going on right now inside your cells and in the cells of all living things on earth. Once in a while. One of these replicating molecules makes a mistake in the copying process. The resulting molecule is slightly different and so has different properties. Most of the time these mistakes occur. The resulting molecule is useless and unable to replicate. But every now and then. One of these changes results in a molecule that replicates itself faster. This molecule now has an advantage over the others and so it makes more copies of its self and BAM!!!!
Evolution has arrived.
The new research has to do with the reactions that created that first replicator. As I said, it was previously thought that these took place in warm water. A warmer environment means more energy means quicker reactions. However the study found that the reactions taking place in the cold water started out slowly. But they kept on going, caught up to and passed the warm water reactions that had stalled. If this new idea turns out to be true. It could have some really neat implications. The best of which is that there is a lot of ice in our solar system. Mars has subsurface ice. Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, is completely covered in ice and planet scientists believe it has a liquid ocean underneath. If life can get going in cold and icy conditions. Then it increases the chances that we may be able to find life on another world right in our own back yard.
Now that would be something truly mind blowing.
The beginnings of life is a real interesting topic. There are a few things we know for sure. Life does exist. Well actually thats about all we know for sure about where life came from. There are several possibilities for the origin of life on earth. I think I'll briefly go through a few here.
Extra Terrestrial
The possibility exists that life came to earth from space. It could have come here in the form of microbes or other such replicators on an asteroid. It may have come from mars. It may have come from another solar system. This is an idea that is gradually losing support tho. Finding life elsewhere in our solar system, or out in the galaxy, that resembled our own would give more weight to this theory.
Intelligently designed
Now to be clear. When I say that life on earth could be intelligently designed. I mean designed by either an alien biological intelligence or an artificial intelligence. Not an omni present, all powerful and wholly fictitious sky magician. The possibility that life on earth was started by an intelligence is intriguing and may be impossible to ever completely rule out. It is possible that an intelligence of some type seeded our planet about 4 billion years ago with some type of replicating molecule. Or they may have jumped ahead and gone for full blown life right away.
It seems pointless to guess at the motives of such an agent. But it's fun to do it anyway. So I'm gonna.
It might be that they are running a large, long term experiment of some kind. They may simply have thought that the earth would be better if there was life here. They may have been trying to spread their own biology out into the universe. Or they may have done it with the hope that some species emerge that may be suitable to serve as their slaves.
The reason I said that this may be impossible to disprove is that it is hard to imagine a way that we could distinguish life that arose here out of non-life. From life that came here from somewhere else. If we discovered life elsewhere in the universe that was similar to our own. Then we may be able to infer a relationship. But even if life elsewhere is different. Independent origins don't necessarily mean that our life arose on earth. The problem is that early forms of life leave no trace and so it is difficult, and maybe impossible, to prove they were ever here.
Terrestrial Origin
Life evolved here on earth a few billion years ago. I find this to be the most reasonable explanation for the existence of life on earth. It starts with a single molecule that is capable of replication. That is it takes other molecules from its environment and makes a copy of itself. We know this can happen. It's going on right now inside your cells and in the cells of all living things on earth. Once in a while. One of these replicating molecules makes a mistake in the copying process. The resulting molecule is slightly different and so has different properties. Most of the time these mistakes occur. The resulting molecule is useless and unable to replicate. But every now and then. One of these changes results in a molecule that replicates itself faster. This molecule now has an advantage over the others and so it makes more copies of its self and BAM!!!!
Evolution has arrived.
The new research has to do with the reactions that created that first replicator. As I said, it was previously thought that these took place in warm water. A warmer environment means more energy means quicker reactions. However the study found that the reactions taking place in the cold water started out slowly. But they kept on going, caught up to and passed the warm water reactions that had stalled. If this new idea turns out to be true. It could have some really neat implications. The best of which is that there is a lot of ice in our solar system. Mars has subsurface ice. Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, is completely covered in ice and planet scientists believe it has a liquid ocean underneath. If life can get going in cold and icy conditions. Then it increases the chances that we may be able to find life on another world right in our own back yard.
Now that would be something truly mind blowing.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Human Powered flight!
Check this out. Human-Powered Ornithopter Becomes First Ever to Achieve Sustained Flight.
How freaking awesome! I want one. It's like a Flintstones car. But for the sky!
I don't have anything to say about this. I just thought it was way kool.
Also. As a follow up to yesterdays post.
Get your ass into gear Aussie. No more dead babies.
How freaking awesome! I want one. It's like a Flintstones car. But for the sky!
I don't have anything to say about this. I just thought it was way kool.
Also. As a follow up to yesterdays post.
Get your ass into gear Aussie. No more dead babies.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Should Vaccination be compulsory for children?
With the growing anti vaccination movement now leading to real out breaks of vaccine preventable illness and actual deaths in some parts of the world. It seems right to pose the question. Should vaccination be made compulsory for children?
I think that the answer is a resounding yes. Vaccination is the best protection that we have against terrible and debilitating infectious diseases. If vaccination rates are allowed to fall below herd immunity levels. There will be outbreaks and people will die. There have been several deaths of infants from pertussis in Australia and California this year. These deaths occurred in babies too young to be vaccinated against the disease and in areas where vaccination rates are low. It can be stated with some confidence that these deaths were preventable.
Vaccine Safety
Are Vaccines safe? Yes. Like all medical interventions there is not, and can never be, a 100% guarantee of safety. There are some people that will suffer an adverse reaction to a vaccine. And in extremely rare cases this may be an injury that persists for life. But these cases are the down side of what has otherwise been one of the greatest medical interventions ever devised. There is no evidence for the harm that is claimed by many in the anti-vax lobby. I have covered vaccination before in a post related to the Immunization Awareness Society. In that post I did a brief summary of the claims for harm from vaccines and what the evidence actually shows. Since that post a new study by the CDC has put more weight behind the idea that there is no link between vaccines and negative neurological outcomes.
With vaccination, as with all medical intervention, there is a risk vs. benefit. The benefit of vaccines is clear and cannot be denied (Tho some will try). And although the risk is real. It is so small in comparison that the use of vaccines is really a no-brainer.
Vaccine Efficacy
Are vaccines effective? Yes. In the 20th century alone it is estimated that smallpox killed between 300 and 500 million people! Once again. Between 300 and 500 million. So why does no one die of smallpox these days? Because it was eradicated by vaccination. Polio has been driven out of the industrialized world. And yet it still remains a threat to millions in part because of resistance to vaccination in the developing world. These communities refuse vaccination for a variety of reasons. Including; Bad information, mistrust, superstition, religion, and more. Then there are other diseases that we haven't yet managed to eradicate but have made a significant dent in. Pertussis, Measles, Rubella, Mumps, Tetanus to name just a few.
The counter to this that I am most familiar with is that infectious diseases were on the decline before vaccination was introduced. And that it is our improved living conditions and nutrition that has lead to better health and fewer deaths. I'm sorry but this argument just doesn't hold weight. Any study of the data will find that the introduction of vaccines correlates with massive drops in both infection and death rates form the ailment concerned. Improving conditions of living and diet have of course led to improved health. But the idea that a person can fight off any disease if they are healthy enough is wrong and a dangerous piece of misinformation.
Herd Immunity
Some people will counter the call that vaccination should be compulsory by saying that a vaccinated child is protected and so not vaccinating is only putting the unvaccinated child at risk. This is incorrect. Vaccination is not 100% effective. Not everyone that receives the vaccine will develop immunity. And there are some individuals that cannot be vaccinated. This can be because they have a known allergy to one of the components. Or they may be Immunocompromised due to an illness, genetic defect or treatment they are undergoing. Or they are just old and sick. Vaccination has to be given at a certain age. Children that have not yet received the vaccination are vulnerable.
This group relies on the rest of the population to be vaccinated in order to maintain herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when enough of the population is vaccinated and sufficiently dispersed that the individuals susceptible to the infection are protected. This is because it is very difficult to sustain a breakout of an infection if the large part of the population are immune. In areas where herd immunity is being lost. Parts of the US, Britain and Australia. Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases are occurring and children are dying.
Conclusion
There are laws that protect children from the actions of their parents. Children are not allowed to be neglected, beaten or abused. In my mind. Not vaccinating ones child is the same as failing to get them adequate medical attention when they are ill. And the decision not to vaccinate a child affects not just that one child. But any vulnerable person that child may come into contact with. Vaccination should be a requirement for sending children into daycare, Kindergarten, Playcentre or School. If a child can be vaccinated. They should be. No exceptions.
I think that the answer is a resounding yes. Vaccination is the best protection that we have against terrible and debilitating infectious diseases. If vaccination rates are allowed to fall below herd immunity levels. There will be outbreaks and people will die. There have been several deaths of infants from pertussis in Australia and California this year. These deaths occurred in babies too young to be vaccinated against the disease and in areas where vaccination rates are low. It can be stated with some confidence that these deaths were preventable.
Vaccine Safety
Are Vaccines safe? Yes. Like all medical interventions there is not, and can never be, a 100% guarantee of safety. There are some people that will suffer an adverse reaction to a vaccine. And in extremely rare cases this may be an injury that persists for life. But these cases are the down side of what has otherwise been one of the greatest medical interventions ever devised. There is no evidence for the harm that is claimed by many in the anti-vax lobby. I have covered vaccination before in a post related to the Immunization Awareness Society. In that post I did a brief summary of the claims for harm from vaccines and what the evidence actually shows. Since that post a new study by the CDC has put more weight behind the idea that there is no link between vaccines and negative neurological outcomes.
With vaccination, as with all medical intervention, there is a risk vs. benefit. The benefit of vaccines is clear and cannot be denied (Tho some will try). And although the risk is real. It is so small in comparison that the use of vaccines is really a no-brainer.
Vaccine Efficacy
Are vaccines effective? Yes. In the 20th century alone it is estimated that smallpox killed between 300 and 500 million people! Once again. Between 300 and 500 million. So why does no one die of smallpox these days? Because it was eradicated by vaccination. Polio has been driven out of the industrialized world. And yet it still remains a threat to millions in part because of resistance to vaccination in the developing world. These communities refuse vaccination for a variety of reasons. Including; Bad information, mistrust, superstition, religion, and more. Then there are other diseases that we haven't yet managed to eradicate but have made a significant dent in. Pertussis, Measles, Rubella, Mumps, Tetanus to name just a few.
The counter to this that I am most familiar with is that infectious diseases were on the decline before vaccination was introduced. And that it is our improved living conditions and nutrition that has lead to better health and fewer deaths. I'm sorry but this argument just doesn't hold weight. Any study of the data will find that the introduction of vaccines correlates with massive drops in both infection and death rates form the ailment concerned. Improving conditions of living and diet have of course led to improved health. But the idea that a person can fight off any disease if they are healthy enough is wrong and a dangerous piece of misinformation.
Herd Immunity
Some people will counter the call that vaccination should be compulsory by saying that a vaccinated child is protected and so not vaccinating is only putting the unvaccinated child at risk. This is incorrect. Vaccination is not 100% effective. Not everyone that receives the vaccine will develop immunity. And there are some individuals that cannot be vaccinated. This can be because they have a known allergy to one of the components. Or they may be Immunocompromised due to an illness, genetic defect or treatment they are undergoing. Or they are just old and sick. Vaccination has to be given at a certain age. Children that have not yet received the vaccination are vulnerable.
This group relies on the rest of the population to be vaccinated in order to maintain herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when enough of the population is vaccinated and sufficiently dispersed that the individuals susceptible to the infection are protected. This is because it is very difficult to sustain a breakout of an infection if the large part of the population are immune. In areas where herd immunity is being lost. Parts of the US, Britain and Australia. Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases are occurring and children are dying.
Conclusion
There are laws that protect children from the actions of their parents. Children are not allowed to be neglected, beaten or abused. In my mind. Not vaccinating ones child is the same as failing to get them adequate medical attention when they are ill. And the decision not to vaccinate a child affects not just that one child. But any vulnerable person that child may come into contact with. Vaccination should be a requirement for sending children into daycare, Kindergarten, Playcentre or School. If a child can be vaccinated. They should be. No exceptions.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Why Intelligent Design is not Science
For anyone not familiar with Intelligent Design (ID). It is basically the idea that things in nature are so complicated that they must have been designed and cannot have evolved. ID makes a poor attempt to distance it's self from the more religious focused Creationism by leaving the identity of the designer a mystery. The ID movement is heavily embedded in the Christian right and mainly in America. There have been actual attempts to get ID into the classroom as science in some states of the US. In 2005 there was a land mark case in which Judge Jones threw the ID proponents out saying, in a nutshell, that ID is not science and has no place in a science classroom. And he was 100% right. ID is not science. Here's why.
1) ID makes no predictions.
In order for a theory to be considered and accepted as science. It must make predictions that can be tested and potentially falsified. ID can not, and doesn't, make predictions. When your hypothesis is that some supernatural entity designed all of the life that we see. Then there are no predictions that can follow from this. By definition of the supernatural, it is out side of the natural world and thus unknowable by humans. This is completely contrary to the fundamental ideas of science. Science can only operate in the natural world because it is required to make predictions. Once a supernatural element is introduced into the mix the hypothesis ceases to be science.
2) ID conducts no experiments.
This is related to the previous point. A scientific theory must be able to propose and conduct experiments and/or observations that could potentially falsify the theory. ID fails this test so completely that it should become blindingly obvious at this point that it in not science. The answer to any question that ID can propose it the designer made it that way. This leads to the outcome that ID can never be falsified and so never be proven wrong. Every legitimate scientific theory must have the potential to be proven false. In fact. It is only once a particular theory is tested over and over and proven to be correct that it is accepted.
3) The evidence for ID can be adequately explained by better theories.
When ID proponents argue for their position they almost always take the position as follows. X cannot be explained by evolution. Therefore evolution is wrong and life is intelligently designed. This is not a valid line of logic and not the way science is done. So far in the history of the movement. All the so called evidence for ID is adequately explained by evolution. And the ID proponents also miss one of the most vital ideas in science when they resort to this line of logic. If we don't know something right now or don't have an explanation for some particular thing. That's ok. There is no need to make the massive and highly improbable leap to an intelligent designer. If science knew everything it would be boring and some what redundant. The point of science is to find out what we don't know and try to explain and understand it. If you allow the supernatural into the fold as an explanation. Then the whole endeavor of investigation ends then and there.
Science is a good thing. The last 200 years of science have provided us with all the wonders of modern society that we enjoy today. If we want to continue to make progress we have to make sure that science is kept free form the sort of rubbish that the ID crowd brings. Simply dressing ID up in the trappings of science does not make it so.
1) ID makes no predictions.
In order for a theory to be considered and accepted as science. It must make predictions that can be tested and potentially falsified. ID can not, and doesn't, make predictions. When your hypothesis is that some supernatural entity designed all of the life that we see. Then there are no predictions that can follow from this. By definition of the supernatural, it is out side of the natural world and thus unknowable by humans. This is completely contrary to the fundamental ideas of science. Science can only operate in the natural world because it is required to make predictions. Once a supernatural element is introduced into the mix the hypothesis ceases to be science.
2) ID conducts no experiments.
This is related to the previous point. A scientific theory must be able to propose and conduct experiments and/or observations that could potentially falsify the theory. ID fails this test so completely that it should become blindingly obvious at this point that it in not science. The answer to any question that ID can propose it the designer made it that way. This leads to the outcome that ID can never be falsified and so never be proven wrong. Every legitimate scientific theory must have the potential to be proven false. In fact. It is only once a particular theory is tested over and over and proven to be correct that it is accepted.
3) The evidence for ID can be adequately explained by better theories.
When ID proponents argue for their position they almost always take the position as follows. X cannot be explained by evolution. Therefore evolution is wrong and life is intelligently designed. This is not a valid line of logic and not the way science is done. So far in the history of the movement. All the so called evidence for ID is adequately explained by evolution. And the ID proponents also miss one of the most vital ideas in science when they resort to this line of logic. If we don't know something right now or don't have an explanation for some particular thing. That's ok. There is no need to make the massive and highly improbable leap to an intelligent designer. If science knew everything it would be boring and some what redundant. The point of science is to find out what we don't know and try to explain and understand it. If you allow the supernatural into the fold as an explanation. Then the whole endeavor of investigation ends then and there.
Science is a good thing. The last 200 years of science have provided us with all the wonders of modern society that we enjoy today. If we want to continue to make progress we have to make sure that science is kept free form the sort of rubbish that the ID crowd brings. Simply dressing ID up in the trappings of science does not make it so.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
More Evidence for the Safety of Vaccines.
A recent study published in the latest issue of Pediatrics shows no association between vaccinations and Autism. Just another that adds to the growing mountain of evidence that vaccines do not cause Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
This is only a single observational study. And is by no means perfect. But it puts more weight down on the side of the safety of vaccines. And is yet more evidence against the claims that Thimerosal has any association with ASD.
Of course this isn't going to sway those hardcore believers that have too much invested in the link. They will simply dismiss the study as bad or lump it in as part of the conspiracy. This really is one of those topics that is really frustrating to learn about. The whole modern anti-vax movement is really the product of a few people. Just a few individuals, with bad science, broken ideas and greed on their minds. And now it is costing the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of children. The evidence is firmly down on the side of vaccine efficacy and safety.
For a good summary of this topic.
Science Based Medicine on Vaccines and Autism
This is only a single observational study. And is by no means perfect. But it puts more weight down on the side of the safety of vaccines. And is yet more evidence against the claims that Thimerosal has any association with ASD.
Of course this isn't going to sway those hardcore believers that have too much invested in the link. They will simply dismiss the study as bad or lump it in as part of the conspiracy. This really is one of those topics that is really frustrating to learn about. The whole modern anti-vax movement is really the product of a few people. Just a few individuals, with bad science, broken ideas and greed on their minds. And now it is costing the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of children. The evidence is firmly down on the side of vaccine efficacy and safety.
For a good summary of this topic.
Science Based Medicine on Vaccines and Autism
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Blog ads
Since my blog is doing well and I'm having heaps of fun writing it. I've decided to add ads using Google ads. My understanding of how this works is that it reads the page and tries to target the ads based upon what's there. Now I see this leading to some crappy stuff happening. Such as advertising for Homeopathy appearing on an entry where I'm trashing Homeopathy. This does cause me some concern.
However. When I think about it. Hopefully very few people who read my blog will be after such services. And those that click through may be doing so just to go see how stupid they are or something similar.
Also. I'm pretty sure that it costs the owner of the ad for each impression (when it shows up on the page) and each click through. Also, I think I get paid for the same.
This leads to the happy situation where the ads for crap appear on my page It costs them money, makes me money. But no one seeing the ads actually goes and buys anything from them.
So perhaps it will work out well.
However. When I think about it. Hopefully very few people who read my blog will be after such services. And those that click through may be doing so just to go see how stupid they are or something similar.
Also. I'm pretty sure that it costs the owner of the ad for each impression (when it shows up on the page) and each click through. Also, I think I get paid for the same.
This leads to the happy situation where the ads for crap appear on my page It costs them money, makes me money. But no one seeing the ads actually goes and buys anything from them.
So perhaps it will work out well.
Must Play More Modern Warfare!!
So guess what? Turns out that some one has confirmed that which I always suspected to be true. Computer games lead to faster decision making! Awesome.
Cognitive scientists from the University of Rochester have discovered that playing action video games trains people to make the right decisions faster. The researchers found that video game players develop a heightened sensitivity to what is going on around them, and this benefit doesn't just make them better at playing video games, but improves a wide variety of general skills that can help with everyday activities like multitasking, driving, reading small print, keeping track of friends in a crowd, and navigating around town.
That's from an article on Science Daily today. Pretty sweet right. This seems to be one of those things that I would have thought was true. But my own experience is not evidence of course. You have to play fast paced action games for the effect to occur. Games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Which just happens to be my favey.
Seems to make sense right. I mean those games require you to keep up and make quick decisions based on torrents of information while ignoring distractions. And the consequences of bad decisions are character death and the associated computer rage. Especially when your on that hard level and there is that one bit where you just can't get to the next check point and you keep dying and you've tried it so many times and in so many different ways and you JUST KEEP ON DYING RAAAAAAAA!
O. What was that?
Never mind. I'm back now. I think that this idea merits further thought in the area of personnel training. It could be used to train people who need the ability to make fast accurate decisions in situations where there may be lots of distractions and conflicting information. Like pilots. Any way. This is just something kool that I wanted to share with you all.
Cognitive scientists from the University of Rochester have discovered that playing action video games trains people to make the right decisions faster. The researchers found that video game players develop a heightened sensitivity to what is going on around them, and this benefit doesn't just make them better at playing video games, but improves a wide variety of general skills that can help with everyday activities like multitasking, driving, reading small print, keeping track of friends in a crowd, and navigating around town.
That's from an article on Science Daily today. Pretty sweet right. This seems to be one of those things that I would have thought was true. But my own experience is not evidence of course. You have to play fast paced action games for the effect to occur. Games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Which just happens to be my favey.
Seems to make sense right. I mean those games require you to keep up and make quick decisions based on torrents of information while ignoring distractions. And the consequences of bad decisions are character death and the associated computer rage. Especially when your on that hard level and there is that one bit where you just can't get to the next check point and you keep dying and you've tried it so many times and in so many different ways and you JUST KEEP ON DYING RAAAAAAAA!
O. What was that?
Never mind. I'm back now. I think that this idea merits further thought in the area of personnel training. It could be used to train people who need the ability to make fast accurate decisions in situations where there may be lots of distractions and conflicting information. Like pilots. Any way. This is just something kool that I wanted to share with you all.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Near Earth Objects.
On September 8, a couple of asteroids came whizzing past the earth. The larger was about 10 to 20 meters in diameter, and the smaller 6 to 14 meters across. Not to much of a problem right? Well kind of.
The fact is that this soft of thing happens just about every week. The only difference here is that someone managed to see these things when they were three days out. Most of the time these asteroids just sail on by and we never notice them. I've recently been looking into the science behind all these near earth objects (NEOs) as they are called. And it turns out there are a crap load of them. They really are all over the place. Just floating around up there, waiting for something to smash into.
So how big of a problem would it be if a chunk of rock came hurtling down from space? The truth is that it depends on a large number of variables. The trajectory of the object, its size, its composition, the location of the impact and so on. For example. The 20 meter object that brushed by could have caused massive amounts of damage if it had landed in the middle of a city or in a large body of water. But had it landed in the middle of a desert. Probably most of us wouldn't even have noticed.
So given that we know about all those big objects up there. Are we doing anything about it? Could we do something about it, even if we wanted to? Well yes. There are people tracking these things and trying to determine if they pose a threat to earth. The problem is that finding them and tracking them accurately is very difficult. As for doing something about it. There are a few options. My favorite is the gravity tug. This is essentially where we fly a ship up next to the asteroid and use the gravity between the asteroid and the ship to pull the killer rock off course. The problem with this approach is that it requires us to know the path of the object we want to deflect years, perhaps decades, in advance. And it requires us to launch a vehicle with enough mass to be able to tug the asteroid. If we have far less warning of impending impact. We're probably best to send a few nukes up after it. The purpose of this is not to destroy the asteroid. But instead to alter its course by blasting the nukes near the surface and thus pushing it in the direction we desire.
The fact is that sooner or later we will be hit by a giant rock from space. If it's big enough, and we don't do any thing about it. It could mean our extinction. But if we know it's coming and we get our ideas sorted in time. We can save ourselves. The NEO Apophis seems to be the most likely candidate, that we know of, for a devastating impact. It's about 270m across and shaped like a potato. It's not big enough to do any damage on a planetary scale. But it would certainly be a bad day of it came down. Apophis is going to pass really close to the earth in 2013. There is a small possibility that it will return on a path that may lead it into a collision with the earth or the moon in 2029. Hopefully when it comes by us we can get a good fix on its movement. This should allow for a precise determination of its orbit and a better chance of predicting if it will smash up the earth.
It's weird. I always thought of space as so empty between the planets. And of course it is, compared to anything I can think. But there is still so much stuff up there. Just hanging out. I really hope we stay out of its way.
The fact is that this soft of thing happens just about every week. The only difference here is that someone managed to see these things when they were three days out. Most of the time these asteroids just sail on by and we never notice them. I've recently been looking into the science behind all these near earth objects (NEOs) as they are called. And it turns out there are a crap load of them. They really are all over the place. Just floating around up there, waiting for something to smash into.
So how big of a problem would it be if a chunk of rock came hurtling down from space? The truth is that it depends on a large number of variables. The trajectory of the object, its size, its composition, the location of the impact and so on. For example. The 20 meter object that brushed by could have caused massive amounts of damage if it had landed in the middle of a city or in a large body of water. But had it landed in the middle of a desert. Probably most of us wouldn't even have noticed.
So given that we know about all those big objects up there. Are we doing anything about it? Could we do something about it, even if we wanted to? Well yes. There are people tracking these things and trying to determine if they pose a threat to earth. The problem is that finding them and tracking them accurately is very difficult. As for doing something about it. There are a few options. My favorite is the gravity tug. This is essentially where we fly a ship up next to the asteroid and use the gravity between the asteroid and the ship to pull the killer rock off course. The problem with this approach is that it requires us to know the path of the object we want to deflect years, perhaps decades, in advance. And it requires us to launch a vehicle with enough mass to be able to tug the asteroid. If we have far less warning of impending impact. We're probably best to send a few nukes up after it. The purpose of this is not to destroy the asteroid. But instead to alter its course by blasting the nukes near the surface and thus pushing it in the direction we desire.
The fact is that sooner or later we will be hit by a giant rock from space. If it's big enough, and we don't do any thing about it. It could mean our extinction. But if we know it's coming and we get our ideas sorted in time. We can save ourselves. The NEO Apophis seems to be the most likely candidate, that we know of, for a devastating impact. It's about 270m across and shaped like a potato. It's not big enough to do any damage on a planetary scale. But it would certainly be a bad day of it came down. Apophis is going to pass really close to the earth in 2013. There is a small possibility that it will return on a path that may lead it into a collision with the earth or the moon in 2029. Hopefully when it comes by us we can get a good fix on its movement. This should allow for a precise determination of its orbit and a better chance of predicting if it will smash up the earth.
It's weird. I always thought of space as so empty between the planets. And of course it is, compared to anything I can think. But there is still so much stuff up there. Just hanging out. I really hope we stay out of its way.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
How to spot a Quack
Quack medicine is everywhere. For some reason, it seems to be acceptable for anyone to come up with anything and sell it as some kind of treatment for whatever they want. These normally don't come in the form of a cure for a specific ailment (tho sometimes they do). But are normally marketed as supplements or detox treatments or other such things.
Biology is massively complicated and it should come as no surprise that there is still so much that we just don't know about the body. Then again. more than a hundred years of science based medicine had given us an absolutely enormous amount of information. The state of medical science is far advanced and our knowledge is such that we have a very large base to draw upon in order to assess what is likely to work and what is likely to be crap.
So let's begin. Here are a few general rules that will allow you to spot a quack or a crappy product.
1) The use of the naturalistic fallacy.
This crops up all the time in CAM. The idea that our modern society is far to reliant on artificial thingys. And that you will be more healthy by eating or using or taking only natural products. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis for any of the products it's usually used to market. More often than not. The active ingredient is exactly the same in the artificial product as it is in the natural alternative. But the artificial product has the advantage of being carefully developed, formulated and tested to give the best result with minimum downside. Many things are natural. Including plenty of deadly poisons. Being natural does not automatically equal good for you.
2) The products benefits are only upheld by the person or company selling it.
This one is usually a dead give away. If there is a good medical product that works as advertised. Then there will be positive information about it provided by a neutral party. It is a sure sign of a quack treatment when the only evidence of it's efficacy comes from the sellers and testimonials of users. The bigger the claims of the product. The more likely this is to be true. A product that claims to cure cancer and yet is completely ignored by the medical profession doesn't work.
3)There is a "one size fits all" method.
As I mentioned in my opening. Biology is so stupidly complicated that there is no possible way that one particular thing will work all the time for everybody. Any real doctor will tell you that medicine is all about the individual needs of each patient. When there is a product or method the claims to work the same way for everyone. It is surely a quack remedy.
4) Anyone that tells you loosing weight and keeping it off is easy.
The medical literature is very clear on this point. Diets don't work. There is no universal solution to loosing weight and keeping it off long term. The simple fact is that people need to reduce their intake of food and get more exercise. It requires a lifestyle change. And that's hard. It takes determination and persistence in order to affect these changes. There is no miracle cure for over weight individuals and anyone who says otherwise is trying to take your money and run.
5) Anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal evidence is absolutely useless as a measure of efficacy. When the only proof that something works is some people saying it is so. You should walk away. Truly effective medical interventions will be backed up by actual data. Trials and studies that are of a sufficient quality to judge if the thing actually works. Stories told by people are not useful as real evidence.
6) There is mention of toxins.
Toxins is a quack remedy buzz word that they like to throw around because it sounds dangerous and scary. But it's absolutely meaningless when used in this way. The usual claim is that our body is being assaulted by toxins. And that we need to detox in order to remove then all. This is all just a load of crap. Any detox program or product is not worth the packaging it comes in.
7) There is mention of big pharma. Or they tell you to not trust your doctor.
This is run on the mill conspiracy type thinking. Or possibly some sort of scare tactic. Quacks usually like to encourage the idea that doctors don't care. Or that they are ignorant of some special knowledge that they alone posses. Or some other such ridiculous notion. Steer well clear of anyone that would take such a point of view.
And finally
8) The ancient secrets fallacy.
This is the idea that some old culture practiced this particular modality and so it must work. This is always a huge red flag. There is no evidence so support the notion that older cultures had any advanced medical knowledge beyond what we know today. When such claims are tested. They come out wanting. Acupuncture for example shows time and time again to have no effect beyond placebo.
This list is by no means complete and comprehensive. But it gives some idea of the sort of things to look out for when evaluating the claims of people pushing alternative medicine. If I want my car fixed. I take it to the mechanic. If I wanted a house built. I would hire a builder. If I have an issue with my health. I go and see a Doctor. Seems to make sense.
Biology is massively complicated and it should come as no surprise that there is still so much that we just don't know about the body. Then again. more than a hundred years of science based medicine had given us an absolutely enormous amount of information. The state of medical science is far advanced and our knowledge is such that we have a very large base to draw upon in order to assess what is likely to work and what is likely to be crap.
So let's begin. Here are a few general rules that will allow you to spot a quack or a crappy product.
1) The use of the naturalistic fallacy.
This crops up all the time in CAM. The idea that our modern society is far to reliant on artificial thingys. And that you will be more healthy by eating or using or taking only natural products. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis for any of the products it's usually used to market. More often than not. The active ingredient is exactly the same in the artificial product as it is in the natural alternative. But the artificial product has the advantage of being carefully developed, formulated and tested to give the best result with minimum downside. Many things are natural. Including plenty of deadly poisons. Being natural does not automatically equal good for you.
2) The products benefits are only upheld by the person or company selling it.
This one is usually a dead give away. If there is a good medical product that works as advertised. Then there will be positive information about it provided by a neutral party. It is a sure sign of a quack treatment when the only evidence of it's efficacy comes from the sellers and testimonials of users. The bigger the claims of the product. The more likely this is to be true. A product that claims to cure cancer and yet is completely ignored by the medical profession doesn't work.
3)There is a "one size fits all" method.
As I mentioned in my opening. Biology is so stupidly complicated that there is no possible way that one particular thing will work all the time for everybody. Any real doctor will tell you that medicine is all about the individual needs of each patient. When there is a product or method the claims to work the same way for everyone. It is surely a quack remedy.
4) Anyone that tells you loosing weight and keeping it off is easy.
The medical literature is very clear on this point. Diets don't work. There is no universal solution to loosing weight and keeping it off long term. The simple fact is that people need to reduce their intake of food and get more exercise. It requires a lifestyle change. And that's hard. It takes determination and persistence in order to affect these changes. There is no miracle cure for over weight individuals and anyone who says otherwise is trying to take your money and run.
5) Anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal evidence is absolutely useless as a measure of efficacy. When the only proof that something works is some people saying it is so. You should walk away. Truly effective medical interventions will be backed up by actual data. Trials and studies that are of a sufficient quality to judge if the thing actually works. Stories told by people are not useful as real evidence.
6) There is mention of toxins.
Toxins is a quack remedy buzz word that they like to throw around because it sounds dangerous and scary. But it's absolutely meaningless when used in this way. The usual claim is that our body is being assaulted by toxins. And that we need to detox in order to remove then all. This is all just a load of crap. Any detox program or product is not worth the packaging it comes in.
7) There is mention of big pharma. Or they tell you to not trust your doctor.
This is run on the mill conspiracy type thinking. Or possibly some sort of scare tactic. Quacks usually like to encourage the idea that doctors don't care. Or that they are ignorant of some special knowledge that they alone posses. Or some other such ridiculous notion. Steer well clear of anyone that would take such a point of view.
And finally
8) The ancient secrets fallacy.
This is the idea that some old culture practiced this particular modality and so it must work. This is always a huge red flag. There is no evidence so support the notion that older cultures had any advanced medical knowledge beyond what we know today. When such claims are tested. They come out wanting. Acupuncture for example shows time and time again to have no effect beyond placebo.
This list is by no means complete and comprehensive. But it gives some idea of the sort of things to look out for when evaluating the claims of people pushing alternative medicine. If I want my car fixed. I take it to the mechanic. If I wanted a house built. I would hire a builder. If I have an issue with my health. I go and see a Doctor. Seems to make sense.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Should we give respect?
Since the stupid burn a Koran thing has exploded throughout the media in such an unbelievable way. I feel the need to use my blog to insert my own opinion. Why should anyone care about my opinion. Ummm. They shouldn't.
But this is my blog and I shall write what I like.
This isn't going to be a normal entry. There are no facts or information here. I'm relaying my own value judgment on the subject of respect for religion.
This whole uproar is simply ridiculous. I find the whole hypocrisy associated with irrational systems of belief to be simply absurd.
Lets break it down. The Muslims are upset because someone wants to burn their holy book. Why? Because they see their book as sacred and sacred things must be treated with respect. Why? Because. Allah says so.
Just because one person considers something to be sacred. Should not mean that everyone else is forced to accept that view point. This is one of those special exemptions that religion seems to have in our society. All other ideas and points of view are up for debate and criticism. But religious ideas seem to have a special sort of protection. Because some group of people, place a particular importance in some ink on a few pages bound up in a cover. The rest of us are expected to respect that? I mean really? I may even be able to accept this ridiculous state of affairs if the religious would return the favor. But that is not the case. On the one had they proclaim that their faith is the one and only truth and that all their ideas are to be respected. And on the other hand they fail to respect the ideas and beliefs of others. You can't have it both ways. Either faith, all faith, is open to criticism. Or it isn't. It must be one or the other.
Dear Religious Person.
I don't respect your faith or that of anyone else. I don't see any particular need to harass anyone about their irrational, superstitions. As long as your believing doesn't negatively affect me or anyone else then I'm quite happy for you to believe anything you want. But don't expect me or anyone to comply with your attempts to impose your ideas on society. I will not accept your belief that your book is the sacred word of god. Or your assertion that when the priest speaks and waves his hands. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. If you want to discuss such matters then that's fine. But be prepared for the fact that I disagree and do not hold your sacred ideas to be true.
Regards
Skeptic Flyer
The burning of any book is a ridiculous waste of time and an affront to human history. Even though I am not a religious person. It would be absurd to just ignore the affect that religion has on the world. Holy books are valuable cultural icons that give us windows into human thinking and history. If religion disappears from our society. These books will become treasures of our past and not the vile symbols that some see them as today. I know there are some Atheists that would have all the religious books in the world destroyed. But I obviously disagree. It is not the book that is the problem in is the people.
To conclude. The correct response to this whole stunt would have been to ignore it. This is one man, leading a small group from nowhere in particular. If they want to go ahead and burn some of their belongings, on their own land, that's just fine. If they had simply been ignored. They would not have gotten the publicity they wanted and no one would have cared.
But this is my blog and I shall write what I like.
This isn't going to be a normal entry. There are no facts or information here. I'm relaying my own value judgment on the subject of respect for religion.
This whole uproar is simply ridiculous. I find the whole hypocrisy associated with irrational systems of belief to be simply absurd.
Lets break it down. The Muslims are upset because someone wants to burn their holy book. Why? Because they see their book as sacred and sacred things must be treated with respect. Why? Because. Allah says so.
Just because one person considers something to be sacred. Should not mean that everyone else is forced to accept that view point. This is one of those special exemptions that religion seems to have in our society. All other ideas and points of view are up for debate and criticism. But religious ideas seem to have a special sort of protection. Because some group of people, place a particular importance in some ink on a few pages bound up in a cover. The rest of us are expected to respect that? I mean really? I may even be able to accept this ridiculous state of affairs if the religious would return the favor. But that is not the case. On the one had they proclaim that their faith is the one and only truth and that all their ideas are to be respected. And on the other hand they fail to respect the ideas and beliefs of others. You can't have it both ways. Either faith, all faith, is open to criticism. Or it isn't. It must be one or the other.
Dear Religious Person.
I don't respect your faith or that of anyone else. I don't see any particular need to harass anyone about their irrational, superstitions. As long as your believing doesn't negatively affect me or anyone else then I'm quite happy for you to believe anything you want. But don't expect me or anyone to comply with your attempts to impose your ideas on society. I will not accept your belief that your book is the sacred word of god. Or your assertion that when the priest speaks and waves his hands. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. If you want to discuss such matters then that's fine. But be prepared for the fact that I disagree and do not hold your sacred ideas to be true.
Regards
Skeptic Flyer
The burning of any book is a ridiculous waste of time and an affront to human history. Even though I am not a religious person. It would be absurd to just ignore the affect that religion has on the world. Holy books are valuable cultural icons that give us windows into human thinking and history. If religion disappears from our society. These books will become treasures of our past and not the vile symbols that some see them as today. I know there are some Atheists that would have all the religious books in the world destroyed. But I obviously disagree. It is not the book that is the problem in is the people.
To conclude. The correct response to this whole stunt would have been to ignore it. This is one man, leading a small group from nowhere in particular. If they want to go ahead and burn some of their belongings, on their own land, that's just fine. If they had simply been ignored. They would not have gotten the publicity they wanted and no one would have cared.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Water for Quake Victims
co-presidents Jem Maber and Susanna Shelton from the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths are suggesting the use of homeopathic "remedies" for the treatment of quake victims. They say their stuff will be able to help people sleep better, stress less and be less susceptible to disease. Among other things.
Now I have no doubt that these two are so far gone down the road of self deception that they honestly believe their crap will help. But it won't. Well. It may in the sense that it's just water and there is still problems with getting clean drinking in water in some places. But in order to get sufficient drinking water form anything homeopathic. One would need to spend hundreds of dollars and consume a massive "over dose". Over dosing on nothing. Hmmmmm.
As a funny aside. The amazing James Randi does an amusing demonstration where he takes an entire bottle of Homeopathic sleeping pills and then proceeds to give an hour long lecture. He never falls asleep.
In this article it says that Homeopaths are trained to recognize behavior patterns associated with stress and trauma. And can dispense "remedies" that will quickly reduce the symptoms. Homeopaths are no more trained than a regular person in anything other than self deception and fraud. And there interventions are no more effective than a witches spell. If you want to relieve stress. Go pat a dog. This has been proven to have a calming and stress reducing effect.
To suggest Homeopathy be used to aid the victims of the Christchurch Quake is just nuts. It's wishful, broken thinking and sympathetic magic. Hey. If you want magic. How about a spell that prevents earthquakes. It's too late for Christchurch. But we could prevent one here in wellington. That would make a lot of people very happy.
Now I have no doubt that these two are so far gone down the road of self deception that they honestly believe their crap will help. But it won't. Well. It may in the sense that it's just water and there is still problems with getting clean drinking in water in some places. But in order to get sufficient drinking water form anything homeopathic. One would need to spend hundreds of dollars and consume a massive "over dose". Over dosing on nothing. Hmmmmm.
As a funny aside. The amazing James Randi does an amusing demonstration where he takes an entire bottle of Homeopathic sleeping pills and then proceeds to give an hour long lecture. He never falls asleep.
In this article it says that Homeopaths are trained to recognize behavior patterns associated with stress and trauma. And can dispense "remedies" that will quickly reduce the symptoms. Homeopaths are no more trained than a regular person in anything other than self deception and fraud. And there interventions are no more effective than a witches spell. If you want to relieve stress. Go pat a dog. This has been proven to have a calming and stress reducing effect.
To suggest Homeopathy be used to aid the victims of the Christchurch Quake is just nuts. It's wishful, broken thinking and sympathetic magic. Hey. If you want magic. How about a spell that prevents earthquakes. It's too late for Christchurch. But we could prevent one here in wellington. That would make a lot of people very happy.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Sour Sweetner?
If you have ever had a diet coke or used an artificial sugar substitute in your coffee. Then chances are good the you've come into contact with Aspartame. This highly dangerous chemical had been linked to a number of serious health problems including; Heart attacks, miscarriage, brain damage, birth defects and Autism. Aspartame is used under a number of brand names. Names like Equal and Nutrasweet. They sound harmless, and delicious, but should be avoided at all cost.
So that, or a version of it, is the usual spiel that comes with the dire warning about the dangers of Aspartame. Linking the artificial sweeter to all kinds of terrible aliments. But it's actually a massive load of BS.
This seems to be one of those memes that was originally started by email chain letter and has now manged to find its way into the popular consciousness. And as with ideas like this. Once it's in there, it's hard to get out. It doesn't help the fact the anything to do with medical pseudo-science usually gets picked up and used as the popular self diagnosis or diagnosis by quack. Aspartame is no exception. Since this piece of miss information made it into the popular consciousness. It has been blamed for all number of specific and nonspecific maladies. The truth is that Aspartame is safe and very useful.
Are there any real concerns over the use of Aspartame? Well yes. If you have the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU), Or you are a pregnant women with hyperphenylalanine (high levels of phenylalanine in blood), you will have a problem with aspartame. This is because you cannot effectively metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine, one of aspartame's components. High levels of this amino acid in body fluids can cause brain damage. Therefore, the American FDA has ruled that all products containing aspartame must include a warning to phenylketonurics that the sweetener contains phenylalanine.
So feel free to enjoy your artificially sweetened beverage. Safe in the knowledge that the Aspartame it contains is no more harmful to you than the multitude of other strange ingredients contained their in.
So that, or a version of it, is the usual spiel that comes with the dire warning about the dangers of Aspartame. Linking the artificial sweeter to all kinds of terrible aliments. But it's actually a massive load of BS.
This seems to be one of those memes that was originally started by email chain letter and has now manged to find its way into the popular consciousness. And as with ideas like this. Once it's in there, it's hard to get out. It doesn't help the fact the anything to do with medical pseudo-science usually gets picked up and used as the popular self diagnosis or diagnosis by quack. Aspartame is no exception. Since this piece of miss information made it into the popular consciousness. It has been blamed for all number of specific and nonspecific maladies. The truth is that Aspartame is safe and very useful.
Are there any real concerns over the use of Aspartame? Well yes. If you have the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU), Or you are a pregnant women with hyperphenylalanine (high levels of phenylalanine in blood), you will have a problem with aspartame. This is because you cannot effectively metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine, one of aspartame's components. High levels of this amino acid in body fluids can cause brain damage. Therefore, the American FDA has ruled that all products containing aspartame must include a warning to phenylketonurics that the sweetener contains phenylalanine.
So feel free to enjoy your artificially sweetened beverage. Safe in the knowledge that the Aspartame it contains is no more harmful to you than the multitude of other strange ingredients contained their in.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Speak With Your Mind
One of the most awesome lines of research in the area of electronic mind reading is the attempt to translate brain signals into speech. I think this idea is so neat not only for what it actually is, but what it represents.
On Science Daily today there is a report about a team from University of Utah that has managed to translate the signals from a volunteers speech cortex into words with a success rate greater than chance. This isn't yet anywhere close to a useful system. But the progression of the technology is obvious and the problems will be solved. Whats also neat here is that the electrodes used to do the brain reading were on the surface of the brain and therefore did not need to enter the brain in any way. This does seem to be the way this kind of technology is moving. There are already systems that allow for the reading of brain waves via external electrodes placed in a cap on the head. It's just a matter of sensitivity. The sensitivity required for speech applications is much greater than other types of this technology. But this is all just a matter of time. These problems will be overcome.
The researches at this stage are concentrating on just a few words. 10 to be exact. Words that may be of the most use to disabled persons who can't speak. Yes, no, hot, cold, hungry, thirsty, hello, goodbye, more and less. This brings me round to the applications of this technology. The most obvious of which I think is the ability for patients that are 'locked in' to communicate. Locked in patients are people that are conscious but have some disability that prevents them from communicating with the world. Can you imagine? Being fully aware but unable to communicate. Being able to give these people the ability to speak, if even in a very limited capacity, would be fantastic! It's coming.
Jumping over to what this type of technology represents. The idea that brain waves can be read and translated to almost anything would open up so many possibilities for a whole new branch of tech. Think about a hat you can wear that would allow you to wirelessly communicate with your TV, computer, stereo, cell phone. This stuff is along way off. But I find my enthusiasm for this stuff is hard to contain. It's just so easy to let the mind wander and speculate wildly about the future applications of this technology. Long term progression of technology and it's applications are impossible to predict. But man it's fun to try. I guess in the short term I'll just be happy with allowing disabled people to speak.
On Science Daily today there is a report about a team from University of Utah that has managed to translate the signals from a volunteers speech cortex into words with a success rate greater than chance. This isn't yet anywhere close to a useful system. But the progression of the technology is obvious and the problems will be solved. Whats also neat here is that the electrodes used to do the brain reading were on the surface of the brain and therefore did not need to enter the brain in any way. This does seem to be the way this kind of technology is moving. There are already systems that allow for the reading of brain waves via external electrodes placed in a cap on the head. It's just a matter of sensitivity. The sensitivity required for speech applications is much greater than other types of this technology. But this is all just a matter of time. These problems will be overcome.
The researches at this stage are concentrating on just a few words. 10 to be exact. Words that may be of the most use to disabled persons who can't speak. Yes, no, hot, cold, hungry, thirsty, hello, goodbye, more and less. This brings me round to the applications of this technology. The most obvious of which I think is the ability for patients that are 'locked in' to communicate. Locked in patients are people that are conscious but have some disability that prevents them from communicating with the world. Can you imagine? Being fully aware but unable to communicate. Being able to give these people the ability to speak, if even in a very limited capacity, would be fantastic! It's coming.
Jumping over to what this type of technology represents. The idea that brain waves can be read and translated to almost anything would open up so many possibilities for a whole new branch of tech. Think about a hat you can wear that would allow you to wirelessly communicate with your TV, computer, stereo, cell phone. This stuff is along way off. But I find my enthusiasm for this stuff is hard to contain. It's just so easy to let the mind wander and speculate wildly about the future applications of this technology. Long term progression of technology and it's applications are impossible to predict. But man it's fun to try. I guess in the short term I'll just be happy with allowing disabled people to speak.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Powered by the Sun.
Solar technology always seems like one of those things that's just so obvious and obtainable. If only the huge number of technical problems could be solved. Then we could have a clean and effectively limitless source of power. And yet progress in the field seems glacially slow. There are still immense problems to over come with regards to efficiency, cost and energy storage.
Today on Science News is a story about a team that has managed to demonstrate a self assembling and self repairing solar cell. This new type of cell could provide for a big boost to overcoming some of the major hurdles in solar energy technology. The cells behave much like plant cells in nature. Because UV radiation and photosynthesis by products are so damaging. Plant cells converting light to energy are constantly damaged and need to be repaired or replaced. In current solar technology the answer to the damaging UV rays has been to make solar cells more resistant to the damage. But the draw backs of this approach are reduced efficiency, increased cost and a limited effective life time. This new approach could lead to solar technology with much higher efficiency, that's cheaper and has effectively an unlimited lifetime.
If solar technology could be made more cost effective it's use could take off. It wouldn't require that much of a leap before we could have solar cells on the roofs of cars and houses. This would be of great advantage to New Zealand. Particularly in areas with high sunshine hours like Hawles' bay and Nelson. The efficiency of the technology may even be able to grow to the point where it could generate sufficient energy even on an overcast day. Of course this is all just speculation at this stage. It still has to be seen if this new technology can overcome its own challenges. But I'm hopeful.
Today on Science News is a story about a team that has managed to demonstrate a self assembling and self repairing solar cell. This new type of cell could provide for a big boost to overcoming some of the major hurdles in solar energy technology. The cells behave much like plant cells in nature. Because UV radiation and photosynthesis by products are so damaging. Plant cells converting light to energy are constantly damaged and need to be repaired or replaced. In current solar technology the answer to the damaging UV rays has been to make solar cells more resistant to the damage. But the draw backs of this approach are reduced efficiency, increased cost and a limited effective life time. This new approach could lead to solar technology with much higher efficiency, that's cheaper and has effectively an unlimited lifetime.
If solar technology could be made more cost effective it's use could take off. It wouldn't require that much of a leap before we could have solar cells on the roofs of cars and houses. This would be of great advantage to New Zealand. Particularly in areas with high sunshine hours like Hawles' bay and Nelson. The efficiency of the technology may even be able to grow to the point where it could generate sufficient energy even on an overcast day. Of course this is all just speculation at this stage. It still has to be seen if this new technology can overcome its own challenges. But I'm hopeful.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Broken Thinking
If you have never heard of creationism before then don't bother looking into it. You have far better things to do.
My post today is regarding the creation "museum" in Kentucky US. It's a place the gives an alternate (see wrong) view of history based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. And it seems that it's actually attracting visitors. Really!?
Who is going to see this crap? I admit that I may go if I was in the area. But I have anecdotal evidence that there are armed guards on site that will eject you if you start pointing and laughing. Could it be that this is only an attraction to people as a sort of bizarre and ridiculous side show? Or is there really a subset of the religious population in America that will consider this bile legitimate science? According to a recent article in the Huffington Post. More than 1.2 million people have gone through the door since this place opened in 2007.
I feel that I shouldn't even bother to point out why it's a complete load of crap. But I just can't resist.
Among the many, many, many, uncountable lies that are on display in this place are the following gems.
*Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
*Noah's arc was actually built and used for it's purported purpose.
*The great flood of the biblical tale happened and caused a mass extinction and created basically all the major geological formations on the earth. Things like caves, the grand canyon ect.
*Species that were alive in the past but are not anymore. Are extinct either because Noah was a dick and choose not to take them on his arc. Or because Noah was a dick and threw them overboard during the flood for some reason.
*The earth is 6000 years old.
And so it goes. On and on. This "museum" is worthy (sort of) of ridicule because it is possibly one of the most awesome and visible examples of what happens when ideology is allowed to replace rational thinking in a human mind. Here we have a prime example of "look at this evidence".
"That evidence doesn't fit with my interpretation of my holy book that I have arbitrarily chosen to be the indispensable word of my god".
"What?"
"Exactly! I therefore reject the truth that is supported by the evidence and embrace the alternative truth that I create for myself".
This kind of severely broken thinking is all over the place in the biblical literalism literature. It has to be. If you subscribe to a literal view of the bible and think that it is the irrefutable word of god. Then your thinking must get further and further from reality as scientific progress is made. Here are a few choice examples of this broken thinking from Answers In Genesis.
"We affirm that the 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything that it teaches."
"We deny that the Bible’s authority is limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes and we deny the exclusion of its authority from its assertions related to such fields as history and science."
"We affirm that no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history, archeology and science, can be considered valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
I don't recommend that you spend too much time at answers in genesis if you value your sanity.
The point I'm trying to make here is that your world view and what you consider to be true should always be informed by the facts. The bible is not a source of facts any more than green eggs and ham. When the kind of broken thinking that results in things like the creation "museum" is allowed to take root in someones mind. It grows increasingly divorced from reality and becomes harder to correct over time. These sorts or places diminish the public understanding of science and lower the collective IQ. This particular monstrosity is in the US. So while it's far away at the moment. It's still useful to understand how these things happen so that we can guard against it. Both in ourselves and in our society.
My post today is regarding the creation "museum" in Kentucky US. It's a place the gives an alternate (see wrong) view of history based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. And it seems that it's actually attracting visitors. Really!?
Who is going to see this crap? I admit that I may go if I was in the area. But I have anecdotal evidence that there are armed guards on site that will eject you if you start pointing and laughing. Could it be that this is only an attraction to people as a sort of bizarre and ridiculous side show? Or is there really a subset of the religious population in America that will consider this bile legitimate science? According to a recent article in the Huffington Post. More than 1.2 million people have gone through the door since this place opened in 2007.
I feel that I shouldn't even bother to point out why it's a complete load of crap. But I just can't resist.
Among the many, many, many, uncountable lies that are on display in this place are the following gems.
*Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
*Noah's arc was actually built and used for it's purported purpose.
*The great flood of the biblical tale happened and caused a mass extinction and created basically all the major geological formations on the earth. Things like caves, the grand canyon ect.
*Species that were alive in the past but are not anymore. Are extinct either because Noah was a dick and choose not to take them on his arc. Or because Noah was a dick and threw them overboard during the flood for some reason.
*The earth is 6000 years old.
And so it goes. On and on. This "museum" is worthy (sort of) of ridicule because it is possibly one of the most awesome and visible examples of what happens when ideology is allowed to replace rational thinking in a human mind. Here we have a prime example of "look at this evidence".
"That evidence doesn't fit with my interpretation of my holy book that I have arbitrarily chosen to be the indispensable word of my god".
"What?"
"Exactly! I therefore reject the truth that is supported by the evidence and embrace the alternative truth that I create for myself".
This kind of severely broken thinking is all over the place in the biblical literalism literature. It has to be. If you subscribe to a literal view of the bible and think that it is the irrefutable word of god. Then your thinking must get further and further from reality as scientific progress is made. Here are a few choice examples of this broken thinking from Answers In Genesis.
"We affirm that the 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything that it teaches."
"We deny that the Bible’s authority is limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes and we deny the exclusion of its authority from its assertions related to such fields as history and science."
"We affirm that no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history, archeology and science, can be considered valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
I don't recommend that you spend too much time at answers in genesis if you value your sanity.
The point I'm trying to make here is that your world view and what you consider to be true should always be informed by the facts. The bible is not a source of facts any more than green eggs and ham. When the kind of broken thinking that results in things like the creation "museum" is allowed to take root in someones mind. It grows increasingly divorced from reality and becomes harder to correct over time. These sorts or places diminish the public understanding of science and lower the collective IQ. This particular monstrosity is in the US. So while it's far away at the moment. It's still useful to understand how these things happen so that we can guard against it. Both in ourselves and in our society.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Christchurch Quake: Hundreds Saved
So unless you live in a cave. In which case you don't have the internet and you aren't reading this. Shame on you! Go get a job. And a place to live. And a computer. Then read my blog!
Anyway. Back on Topic.
There was a massive earthquake in Christchurch today!
A quake of 7.1 is a big quake, with the potential for plenty if destruction and loss of life. And it was centered close to a major city. And it was reasonably shallow. So why are there not hundreds of people dead?
To compare. The Hati Earthquake that struck near the Hatian capital on the 12th of January this year was magnitude 7 and killed around 100,000 people. The 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China was magnitude 8.0 and killed upwards of 70,000.
The reason that these quakes are so devastating in these areas is due to the construction of buildings and quality of the emergency services available. We live in a country that has the technology and the resources and know how to build homes and business that won't catastrophically fail in a reasonable sized quake. And we have the resources and systems in place too ensure that help can be dispatched to any that need it when these disasters strike.
This makes me think about living here in wellington. There is going to be a large earthquake here at some stage. It's an inevitable consequence of living on a fault line. So what to do if an earthquake strikes? Well, as I said. most buildings are built to strict codes that ensure they can survive a moderate quake and not collapse. but that doesn't mean you should consider your self perfectly safe inside. If you are at home or in a small building. The best option is to get to cover under a table or similar furniture item. Avoid any windows and glass as these can become a significant hazard. If you find yourself in a high rise. The strongest part of the building is the stairwell. If your out on the street in the city center. Try and find shelter so you don't get wasted by falling glass and the like.
I hear the politicians this morning saying that we are blessed that no one has died. What a load of BS. Sure there is an element of luck. But the real reason that there are none dead is because this has been studied, thought about and planned for at length. Action has been taken that is informed by the vast body of knowledge. If you feel the need to thank anyone for this spectacular success of modern engineering and planning. Don't turn to a fictional magician in the sky. The credit belongs to the ones before us who did the science and those with the sense to see it implemented.
Anyway. Back on Topic.
There was a massive earthquake in Christchurch today!
A quake of 7.1 is a big quake, with the potential for plenty if destruction and loss of life. And it was centered close to a major city. And it was reasonably shallow. So why are there not hundreds of people dead?
To compare. The Hati Earthquake that struck near the Hatian capital on the 12th of January this year was magnitude 7 and killed around 100,000 people. The 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China was magnitude 8.0 and killed upwards of 70,000.
The reason that these quakes are so devastating in these areas is due to the construction of buildings and quality of the emergency services available. We live in a country that has the technology and the resources and know how to build homes and business that won't catastrophically fail in a reasonable sized quake. And we have the resources and systems in place too ensure that help can be dispatched to any that need it when these disasters strike.
This makes me think about living here in wellington. There is going to be a large earthquake here at some stage. It's an inevitable consequence of living on a fault line. So what to do if an earthquake strikes? Well, as I said. most buildings are built to strict codes that ensure they can survive a moderate quake and not collapse. but that doesn't mean you should consider your self perfectly safe inside. If you are at home or in a small building. The best option is to get to cover under a table or similar furniture item. Avoid any windows and glass as these can become a significant hazard. If you find yourself in a high rise. The strongest part of the building is the stairwell. If your out on the street in the city center. Try and find shelter so you don't get wasted by falling glass and the like.
I hear the politicians this morning saying that we are blessed that no one has died. What a load of BS. Sure there is an element of luck. But the real reason that there are none dead is because this has been studied, thought about and planned for at length. Action has been taken that is informed by the vast body of knowledge. If you feel the need to thank anyone for this spectacular success of modern engineering and planning. Don't turn to a fictional magician in the sky. The credit belongs to the ones before us who did the science and those with the sense to see it implemented.
Earth from Mercury
This is a picture taken from the spacecraft messenger as it passed by the sun.
I think that everyone can agree on the awesomeness of this picture. In the lower left corner you can see the earth and our moon. This was taken from a spot in space where Mercury is a few times a year. So this can be reasonably seen as the view of the earth you would have if you happened to be on mercury. And you were not either frozen or cooked of course.
The coolest thing about this shot I think, is that it shows how from Mercury both the earth and the moon are just seen as little balls of reflected sunlight. Mercury never sees the phases of the moon. And it knows nothing of our large oceans and sweet cloud formations that you see from most pictures of earth taken from space (usually earth orbit). Even within our own little solar system. The earth is a remarkably small and insignificant place.
 |
Click to see full size picture. |
The coolest thing about this shot I think, is that it shows how from Mercury both the earth and the moon are just seen as little balls of reflected sunlight. Mercury never sees the phases of the moon. And it knows nothing of our large oceans and sweet cloud formations that you see from most pictures of earth taken from space (usually earth orbit). Even within our own little solar system. The earth is a remarkably small and insignificant place.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Full Moon Crazy?
Many people believe that the full moon correlates with a whole bunch of crazy and abnormal behavior. I used to hold this particular belief myself.
So does the full moon cause abnormal human behavior? Well. No.
The best studies on the subject find no increase in the types of behavior usually associated with the full moon during that time. Things like; Psychotic episodes, Emergency room admissions, emergency services call outs and so on.
This is an old belief that is firmly ingrained in the popular culture. The word “lunatic” derives from the Latin term luna, or moon. In 19th-century England, some lawyers used a “not guilty by reason of the full moon” defense to acquit clients of crimes committed during full moons. And yes, it actually worked on a number of occasions. One study revealed that up to 81% of mental health professionals believe in the lunar effect, and a study of nurses demonstrated that 69% believe that full moons are associated with increase in patient admissions.
The common reason given to explain the effect is that the human brain is mostly water. We know that the moon has an enormous effect on water on the earth because we observe it in the tides. So the logical inference is that the moon is affecting the human brain according to it's phase. There two major things wrong with this argument. First. The tidal effect of the moon is not related in any way to it's phase. The tidal effect of the moon is related to its position in its orbit and its distance form the earth (the orbit of the moon is not a circle). Second. The tidal forces exerted by the moon on a human are simply far to small. Tidal force is a result of the difference in gravitational force due to the moon from one side of the earth to the other. It is significant on the earth because one side of the earth is closer to the moon than the other by an amount that is significant relative to the distance between the two. And because the oceans are large and they all, you know, connect. for the same reason that we don't observe a tidal effect in a swimming pool. There can be no tidal effect due to the moon on the human body. In fact. A fly sitting your arm will exert a greater tidal effect on your brain than the moon!
So why is this belief so widely accepted?
Humans are programmed to remember events. We don't do so well with remembering non events. This is a form of confirmation bias. When someone has the idea that the full moon correlates with weird behavior. They will remember the times that this correlation holds true as an event and forget the times when there was strange behavior that didn't occur at the full moon. The latter is a non event. Remembering non events is not useful and a wasteful use of valuable memory so we have evolved not to do it. This is certainly how I came to believe in the full moon effect.
To summarize. There likely is no full moon effect. This is one of those a commonly held and accepted beliefs that happens to be false. This belief is most likely due to confirmation bias. By understanding confirmation bias and how it influences human reasoning. We can be on guard to ensure we don't fall into its carefully laid trap.
So does the full moon cause abnormal human behavior? Well. No.
The best studies on the subject find no increase in the types of behavior usually associated with the full moon during that time. Things like; Psychotic episodes, Emergency room admissions, emergency services call outs and so on.
This is an old belief that is firmly ingrained in the popular culture. The word “lunatic” derives from the Latin term luna, or moon. In 19th-century England, some lawyers used a “not guilty by reason of the full moon” defense to acquit clients of crimes committed during full moons. And yes, it actually worked on a number of occasions. One study revealed that up to 81% of mental health professionals believe in the lunar effect, and a study of nurses demonstrated that 69% believe that full moons are associated with increase in patient admissions.
The common reason given to explain the effect is that the human brain is mostly water. We know that the moon has an enormous effect on water on the earth because we observe it in the tides. So the logical inference is that the moon is affecting the human brain according to it's phase. There two major things wrong with this argument. First. The tidal effect of the moon is not related in any way to it's phase. The tidal effect of the moon is related to its position in its orbit and its distance form the earth (the orbit of the moon is not a circle). Second. The tidal forces exerted by the moon on a human are simply far to small. Tidal force is a result of the difference in gravitational force due to the moon from one side of the earth to the other. It is significant on the earth because one side of the earth is closer to the moon than the other by an amount that is significant relative to the distance between the two. And because the oceans are large and they all, you know, connect. for the same reason that we don't observe a tidal effect in a swimming pool. There can be no tidal effect due to the moon on the human body. In fact. A fly sitting your arm will exert a greater tidal effect on your brain than the moon!
So why is this belief so widely accepted?
Humans are programmed to remember events. We don't do so well with remembering non events. This is a form of confirmation bias. When someone has the idea that the full moon correlates with weird behavior. They will remember the times that this correlation holds true as an event and forget the times when there was strange behavior that didn't occur at the full moon. The latter is a non event. Remembering non events is not useful and a wasteful use of valuable memory so we have evolved not to do it. This is certainly how I came to believe in the full moon effect.
To summarize. There likely is no full moon effect. This is one of those a commonly held and accepted beliefs that happens to be false. This belief is most likely due to confirmation bias. By understanding confirmation bias and how it influences human reasoning. We can be on guard to ensure we don't fall into its carefully laid trap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)