Radio Freethinker

Vancouver's Number 1 Skeptical Podcast and Radio Show

  • Welcome to Radio Freethinker!

    Radio Freethinker is a radio show/podcast that promotes skepticism, critical thinking, and secular issues.

  • Follow Us!

  • Categories

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘biology’

Pseudo Censorship

Posted by Don McLenaghen on January 9, 2012

A University of Louisiana professor is suing his university for violation of his first amendment rights by both criticizing his methods as well as preventing him from teaching

The first anti-vaxxers

Professor John Oller Jr., who worked in the Communicative Disorders Department, claims the Dean of Arts became hostile to his theories and systematically excluded him from teaching students. There have been reductions of his class size, a banning of his self-authored textbook, a lack of lecture opportunities and, according to Oller, a general ostracization by his fellow professors. Communicative Disorders Department deals with topics like Autism, Dyslexia and learning disabilities that affect communications. Oller specializes in sign language but more recently has focused on Autism. In 2010 he published a book – Autism: The Diagnosis, Treatment, & Etiology of the Undeniable Epidemic. The forward is written by Andrew Wakefield.

In the book, he promotes the false link between vaccination and the supposed ‘autism’ epidemic. Remember, his expertise is in linguistics not immunology or even biology.  There is more; he is also a believer in Intelligent Design and Creationism. He has spoken many times to the Louisiana legislature as an expert to promote the teaching of ID in Louisiana high school biology curriculum.

Oller, when presenting himself to the legislature, is seen as a doctor, as a member of the faculty of the University of Louisiana…using this position of respectability and authority, he gave testimony on a subject matter (biology/evolution) that he has no expertise. As a public representative of the university, this has a direct impact on the image and credibility of the university in general and the faculty of Communicative Disorders directly.

Oller is also a tenured professor…that is, unless he kills a student, he cannot be fired. Usually tenure protects professors from inappropriate persecution, however occasionally the discrimination is warranted, as in this case. Oller has used his academic and teaching platform to espouse his outlandish theories about both the causes of autism and the belief it’s an epidemic…theories in fields that are not his area of expertise. It is because of this that the department attempted to limit the damage he could do in his attempt to pollute students minds. If he had limited his teaching time…his lectures to discussing aspects of overcoming communication deficiencies of those affected by autism…maintained his comments to disorders that affect communication; the position of the dean would be weak.

The Dean and several faculty members (there does not seem to be any faculty that support Oller) mention that on several occasions they have had to deal with issues arising from Oller’s teaching and that they had been told by many his presence hurts the department’s credibility. Again, Oller is welcome to his own personal opinions that he may express and promote on his personal time; however if he uses his academic position to forward his cause…misusing his credential by implying knowledge in topics he does not have credentials…this transforms his personal activities to activities that have implications for the university…a transformation that gives the university a say (veto?) in how he presents himself in those occasions.

Evolution of the Creationist

He is, in part, being defended by the ADF – Alliance Defence Fund, a servant organization that provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense of religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage and the family. Sorry for the ad hominem…

Okay, I think we have three issues here – is he competent to teach his subject, does his professional activities outside teaching (and outside the university) provide the university justification for workplace actions and lastly does his private activities provide the university justification for workplace actions?

Now, on the first case, Oller was hired to teach about methods of communications and issues arising from that. He was NOT hired to comment, speculate or imply in his capacity as an instructor on the root causes of Autism. Now, instructors are often give some leeway to provide ‘editorial’ comment in class (take any class in political science or economics and you will hear at least one tangential theory from your professor); that said it is unclear specifically how far Oller expounded on his ‘theories’ in class but considering his self-authored textbook, it does appear to be more than a passing comment…to the point where is appears to be a central tenet of his instruction. So, on this ground the university was with its rights to ‘silence’ him.

On the second grounds, his promotion of both anti-vaccination and creationism would involve the university if he gave such lectures through the university lecture circuit or in off-campus activities where he identified himself as both an expert on subject he did not actual have accreditation AND affiliated himself with the university.  In doing this, and again it has been claimed by the faculty that he did this not irregularly, he not only risks his own professional reputation but also that of the faculty and university he is associated with. Again, it seems the university has a right to censor his activities as best they can.

On the last point, where he promotes his ‘wacky’ ideas on his own time as ‘just a regular citizen’; although I find his views offensive and dangerous; I do not think the university has the right to interfere with these aspects of his life. IT may, as collateral damage, tarnish the image is a report Googles his name and discovers he is a faculty member but that is not the offence of Oller. However, it seem Oller was not content to limit is activities to ‘private citizen’ acts but used the weight (and thus the prestige) of both his position and his association with a credible institution to make his outlandish remarks.

It’s a shame he will be used in future as an argument against the tenure system. It has it faults but it does provide academics the freedom to be a counterbalance to the establishment; however when one wishes to be counter-establishment there is a greater weight upon them to ensure their views can be backed up with evidence and that they are not a throwback to a disproved and discredited point of view.

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Midas Mind: Explorations of the Golden Section

Posted by Jenna Capyk on November 14, 2011

The Golden Section, the Golden Proportion, the Golden Mean. What is this curious and literally irrational number? This blog post will what it is, where it shows up, how we use it, and the science and skepticism behind finding it everywhere.

The Golden Section: What is it?

The shortest answer to this question is: a number. Specifically, the golden mean is an irrational number. This does not mean that the number has trouble thinking clearly and making good decisions, but rather that it can’t be written as a fraction, also known as a ratio. Practically what this means is that the golden proportion, like pi, is a number with an endless stream of digits after the decimal place. This also means, of course, that you can impress girls at parties by wowing them with how you’ve memorized it to the n’th decimal place. Also like pi, the golden ratio is associated with a monosyllabic greek letter: phi. For those readers who like actual digits, the “golden section” is around 0.618, while phi represents the inverse of this number, around 1.618. Because this ratio has very special properties these terms are used pretty much interchangeably in general conversation.

Before delving into the properties of this “special” number, I’d like to put out the disclaimer that I am in no way a mathematician but will try my best not to misrepresent the math. There are a lot of ways to describe phi mathematically. A lot of them either involve algebraic equations or visual representations. My favourite way to explain phi is a number describing a continuous, balanced proportionality. For example, it is the only way to cut a piece of string such that the ratio of the length of the smaller piece to the bigger piece is equal to the ratio of the length of the bigger piece to the whole thing before you cut it. Mathematically, this is described by the equation a/b = b/(a+b). It’s also mathematically important for being the only solution to the equation x² = x + 1, and as such the golden section (~0.618) plus one is equal to the inverse of the golden section (~1.618), or phi.  It is also  the limit to the ratio between any two numbers in a Fibionnacci series.

You may, at this point, be asking yourself: who cares how a line is cut up? How would this show up in my life? Although the line example is a good way to explain what the ratio is, this very basic principal can be used to build all kinds of other shapes and forms. For example, the so-called “golden spiral” is the only spiral shape that looks exactly the same no matter how far you zoom in or zoom out on it, and there are also golden rectangles, triangles, pentagons, pentagrams etc. that are intimately related to the golden mean. There are some excellent diagrams in the review article “All that glitters: a review of psychological research on the aesthetics of the golden section” by Christopher D. Green. These basic shapes can in turn, be used to make up more and more complex shapes and things. Even things like people, galaxies, and quasicrystals.

The Golden Mean in the Physical World

Biology

The intriguing thing about the Golden Mean is that it is not only very important in many mathematical models, but shows up in a very real and practical sense in many places in the natural world. I don’t know many nautilus’, abalone, or tritons interested in algebra or geometry, but all of these sea creatures grow shells in the characteristic golden spiral. The same spiral can be found in pine cones, pineapples, and sunflower seed growth patterns. Likewise many many plants use pentagonal symmetry, based on the phi-related pentagon. The Fibonacci series mentioned above can also describe population growth patterns of very different types of species (such as bees vs. rabbits) and these numbers have very close mathematical ties to the golden section. Many people have also suggested that humans and other animals exhibit proportions close to the Golden Mean. For example the ratio of the length of the sections of your fingers divided by your knuckles approximates this ratio. These claims are harder to investigate, especially as they involve assumed “ideal ratios” for a species.

Non-biological sciences

Aside from biology, the shapes of the Golden Ratio show up in physical representations in the natural world. For example, tropical hurricanes and spiral galaxies often spiral in a golden or logarithmic spiral. Beaches can form in this shape due to erosive wave action. Many, many places that you wouldn’t necessarily expect to find expressions of deep mathematical laws turn out, in the end, to be ruled by these same principals.

Quasicrystals

One of these arguably counter-intuitive manifestations of the golden ratio is between molecules that make up quasi-crystalline material. Peak positions in x-ray diffraction patterns of quasi-crystals are related by the golden mean. In fact, this property is an indicator of the quasi-crystalline state. So while regular crystals are made up of evenly spaced molecules, molecules in a quasi-crystal are not spaced at regular intervals, but at intervals that relate to each other by the golden ratio.

Esthetics of the Golden Mean

The case has been argued over and over that objects that reflect the golden ratio are intrinsically pleasing from an aesthetic point of view. Knowledge of the golden mean existed in ancient Egypt and was then passed along to different ancient civilizations. Such historical figures as Euclid and Vetruvius are recorded as referencing the wonderful properties of this number. James Sully included the first English-language use of the term “golden section” in his article on aesthetics in the 1875 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It’s been called the most beautiful ratio, and whether by accident or on purpose, humans have used their knowledge of this number to create works of art of all kinds. Evidence of this number shows up in architecture in ancient Egypt. Leonardo da Vinci illustrated the book De divina proportione by Luca Pacioli di Brogo, and also used this proportion heavily in many of his own works. People have even made claims that the division points in major symphonic works conform to this ratio. In a modern twist to this aesthetic appeal, plastic surgeons, most often cosmetic dentists, have used this proportion to sell their clients the “most perfectly beautiful” smile.

One of the important things to remember in studying such occurrences is the strong human tendency for confirmation bias. If you go looking for the golden proportion, you WILL find it. It then becomes a process of untangling both the numbers and the motivations surrounding phi’s true prevalence in nature and the man-made world. The importance of phi in basic mathematics is hard to refute, and I mentioned several robust examples in the natural world, but what about more tenuous examples? Finding ratios that are “really close”? Finding it in a painting? Is it coincidence? Does it occur more frequently than other ratios? How many other ratios are reflected in the same thing? As far as finding that phi really is a prevalent component of a work of art or other man-made thing, is this on purpose? Did the creator of this work incorporate this ratio explicitly or was it a consequence of an unconscious aesthetic appreciation? What does either outcome say about the intrinsic value of this number to human consciousness?

Research into the true aesthetics of Phi

Our interest in how we, as humans, perceive things expressing the golden ratio is ancient, and scientific research into phi-related psychology is some of the earliest empirical studies conducted in psychology. Many scientific studies have suggested that people really do like things that conform to the golden ratio. Various experiments have shown that when asked to choose their favourite “thing” (such as a single rectangle) from a group of other “things” (such as a bunch of rectangles with different length-to-width ratios) they tend to overwhelmingly prefer the thing which conforms most closely to phi. For example, there have been studies looking at really pared-down manifestations of phi (literally lines and rectangles) all the way up to measuring “landmarks” on human faces, assigning them a number based on how closely they conform to the golden ratio, and then asking people to rate their level of attractiveness.

Lately, a lot of the research has gone into trying to prove that humans don’t have an intrinsic response to the golden ratio. That is, a lot of scientists have been taking a skeptical look at the long-held assumption that people are able to recognize and subconsciously be affected by things conforming to this ratio, and specifically it’s aesthetic value. The alternative hypothesis is that people don’t have an intrinsic ability to pick out and like this ratio, but that as a society we have an understanding of its prevalence and a somewhat superstitious belief that it’s beautiful. According to Dr. Green, the jury is still out. While many groups have gone into this type of research with each opposing hypothesis, there appears to be no strong consensus as to whether people are truly drawn to things with phi proportionality, or whether it’s more or less just a number our society knows about and therefore names a lot. Dr. Green also brings up the point that if the effect is genuine, we are even further from knowing whether it falls on the nature or nurture side of biology; that is, whether this preference is from a physiological or learned psychological part of ourselves.

The Golden Mean and Human Cognition

One of most interesting things about our fascination with the golden ratio is that it represents an interesting experiment in the way that people can look at seemingly significant things. This number shows up legitimately in all kinds of places in math and in nature. This fact can be looked at in two skeptically opposite ways:

1) This has been worked into the fabric of the universe by some cognizant being

2) There is something about the way this number corresponds with relationships between things that can tell us something about the fundamental laws of the universe we live in

With the Golden proportion there is also the extra layer of aesthetics. In this case, we also have to consider that when we do encounter this ratio, we seem to find it pleasing. A non-skeptical view of this might be that we are recognizing the signature of a cosmic creator that made us using this formula. A more skeptical viewpoint might be to ask first IF we intrinsically find it pleasing, and then WHY. Again, it’s the difference between explaining it away with mysticism and questioning whether there is something more to be learned from this observation that we could explore scientifically and really gain some insight into our world.

Encountering something that seems mystical at first glance can be the starting point of an amazing scientific discovery. It’s often the things that don’t fit our current models that we consider magic, when really these represent an opportunity to expand the model through understanding such outliers. Some people argue that this is taking the magic out of life, but the more you understand it, our world is pretty awesome all on its own. No magic required.

Posted in Blogs, Jenna's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Wars and Weddings: Anthropomorphism in Biology

Posted by Jenna Capyk on July 5, 2011

If the human race had an anthem I don’t think there’s any question that it would be “You’re So Vain.” You probably think this article is about you, and you’re right. As a species we have an almost boundless ability to make everything about us. What other being can see themselves in two dots above a curved horizontal line? This anthropomorphic tendency has manifested itself in everything from exploiting all possible natural resources as our right as “intelligent” creatures, to couching our observations of other living things in a context of human emotional experience. Although this is obvious in eavesdropping on any child visiting a zoo, it’s occurrence and influence in mainstream biology is both less obvious and arguably more detrimental.

People are people and snakes are snakes and bacteria are bacteria. It is, however, amazing how often scientists forget the factors that cause these distinctions when they are writing up their work. The extreme example is the field of microbiology, or the study of bacteria and viruses. Although perhaps contested by a fringe few, our neurological framework is generally understood to be the seat of emotional experience. Bacteria do not have nerves, or any of the basic components to build them. In fact, bacteria have only one cell, and even those are a simpler version of each of our own cells. This complete lack of “thinking” and “feeling” machinery, however, does not stop these organisms from being credited with wants, needs, schemes, and even a certain military strategy prowess in the most respected scientific publications. Bacterial populations are often described as being “at war” with their neighbours, or our immune systems. Accounts of bacterial strains “making the decision” to use a specific resource or performing a chemical reaction “in order to” accomplish a task gives these single-celled bags of chemistry some serious intellectual clout.

The argument can be made that this type of language is simply used to make complex interactions easier to understand, by placing them in a framework we intuitively understand. I would argue, however, that such misrepresentation easily becomes engrained and confuses the understanding of the true mechanisms of biology, ecology, and even evolution. It is very easy to start to endow everything with a sense of purpose and intent when otherwise scientific literature presents us with images of thinking and feeling entities in the name of greater understanding. The actual mechanisms by which things interact in an ecosystem, be it the forest floor or your large intestine, are truly amazing and demonstrate the amazing power of evolution to solve complex problems with simple solutions. Evolution is a process governed by random events, unlike those concocted by human brain hardware. We persist, however, in attributing humanoid intent to everything from a bacterium producing a chemical that inhibits fungal growth to a worm acquiring a new gene that allows it to survive cold weather.  In using these anthropomorphized explanations we run the very real risk of understanding biology as operating under a specific plan with a specific purpose, instead of ruled by the random nature of evolution.

We intuitively understand human interactions and things described in these terms because we are exposed to it from infancy. By limiting our exposure to different concepts by constantly framing all biological interactions in our own experience we do ourselves a disservice. Practice makes perfect, and to start to understand the true mechanisms behind the world around us we need to practice discussing things on their own terms and leave our hominid baggage at home.

Posted in Blogs, Jenna's Blogs | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Creationist Clashes in British Columbia

Posted by Ethan Clow on October 29, 2010

(Cross posted on Skeptic North)

Recently a creationists, one Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, (his PhD is in chemistry) has been touring in British Columbia speaking on the subject of evolution. The title of his talk is “Evolution: The Greatest Hoax on Earth” which is his way of suggesting that he can refute the claims made by Richard Dawkins in his latest book “The Greatest Show on Earth.”

My esteemed co-hosts and I on Radio Freethinker discussed this event on our most recent episode, and my friend the Crommunist blogged about it over at Canadian Atheist.

Dr. Sarfati, the founder of Creation Ministries International is a Christian apologist who believes in the literal truth of the bible and specifically biblical creationism. For those that don’t know, creationism is the belief that life on earth arose according to the accounts in Genesis (Earth created in 7 days and 10,000 years ago) and not through the process of evolution (a billion year process of natural selection)

As far as creationists go, he has nothing new to say nor is he particularly good at delivering his message.

Why this warrants a blog post is that when skeptics in Vancouver and abroad learned that he intended to deliver his speech at the University of British Columbia as well as several other important venues across the province, many of us were concerned.  We decided it would be prudent to set up an evolution information booth at the event so that attendee’s would be able to get some actual science content instead of Christian dogma.

In Vancouver, our biggest concern was that he was speaking at a university. By nature of the university itself (dedication to research, facts, honesty, education) we felt this lent Dr. Sarfati undue credibility. You can read an article about Dr. Sarfati’s talk at UBC in the Ubyssey, the campus newspaper, although it makes no mention of the pro-evolution contingent at the lecture.

Getting a booth proved difficult. Fortunately persistence paid off and CFI Vancouver, the UBC Freethinkers and the UBC Biology department teamed up to put together some evolution literature and experts at hand to properly explain the science.

Sarfati was also doing talks in Surrey later that day but unfortunately we were unable to get an information booth for that talk. We suspect having the support of the UBC Biology department made our request more likely to be accepted at UBC, however his speaking engagement in Surrey wasn’t in a university but a private venue.

We set up our booth outside his lecture and had many people come up to us to see what we were about. It was actually quite successful, many students who didn’t have a background in science came over to us and eagerly asked questions, which our biology experts were all too happy to answer. We had several science, skeptic and evolution books which people were encouraged to leaf through and look at.

When time came for the talk we took some seats inside and took notes. However, as I mentioned, this was a farce of a lecture, even by creationist standards.

I mentioned on Radio Freethinker that Dr. Sarfati was a clown. I of course realize that’s an ad hominem but it’s very apt. He began his lecture by stating that scientists like Dawkins have different starting assumptions when it comes to biology, Dr. Sarfati has the bible, and Dawkins has Darwin. (Neglecting to mention that while Sarfati begins with the assumption that the bible is literal truth, Dawkins doesn’t believe Darwin to be gospel.)

Sarfati also has some interesting views on science itself. He suggests that it was born out Christianity, which explains why Western Christendom was so advanced. (The Dark Ages weren’t really all that dark, he assured the audience.) He further explained that believing in evolution would lead to moral bankruptcy and ultimately atheism (which was very bad)

Aside from the fact that his historical interpretation of the history of science and Christianity is completely wrong, his understanding of how science works also seems completely off base.

His evidence for why evolution can’t possibly be true is staggeringly silly. Consider his case against fossils, which can’t exist because “what happens when a fish dies? Look at your goldfish, it floats!” How could it get to the bottom of the ocean to fossilize? He questions enthusiastically. Throw out your Origin of the Species, everyone!

Of course he also argues that life is simply too irreducibly complex to happen by chance. After all, if things look designed, they must be!

He takes particular exception to the notion of life emerging from non-living components. To illustrate the absurdity of this, he asks the audience what would happen if you put a frog in a blender and added energy? He shows a slide of a blender with frog goop and says “this is what happens when you add energy, not in a million years is a frog going to hop out of that mess.”

He repeatedly hammered that evolution doesn’t “add information” it only results in life becoming more specialized and therefore couldn’t possibly be true. As most creationists do, he constructs a straw man argument and proceeds to knock it down. He really wanted us to understand that mutations are not adding information, “after all” he explains, “most mutations do stupid things like giving a bulldog a smushed nose.” And who wants a smushed nose?

When it came time to answer questions he wasn’t particularly interested in hearing counter arguments. Rather belligerently he would shout down anyone who raised a critical question. Any time a biology professor asked something he would make some comment on them indoctrinating students into atheism.

His obnoxious attitude was so aggressively aimed at the sciences that I was shocked by the way several audience members who weren’t skeptics reacted. Many cheered as Dr. Sarfati lambasted biology professors for teaching evolution and brainwashing innocent young people who come to learn about the natural world. Not only was this insulting to the professors, but several biology students found it offensive as well. There was one protracted argument between Dr. Sarfati and a student that sounded like a school yard dispute then scholarly discourse. Over the course of the question period several skeptics end up walking out in frustration. I don’t blame them, I’ve never actually seen someone so obnoxious.

His demurer didn’t improve. He would later visit the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus. Alas, there were more skeptics there too.

CFI Okanagan and the UBCO Skeptics also set out to ask some probing questions of Dr. Sarfati.

He was not pleased to say the least. Several skeptics in Kelowna decide to wear t-shirts saying “Creationism: a Philosophy of Ignorance.” He was further incensed when skeptics tried to ask some critical questions. Unlike in Vancouver where the audience was roughly evenly divided between skeptics and creationists, in Kelowna the skeptics were definitely in the minority. At one point a philosophy professor was even threatened with a head lock by a creationist in the audience when he pointed out some of Dr. Sarfati’s logical fallacies.

His respectability metre went down even further when he made some racially insensitive remarks following his lecture that left several CFI Okanagan members justly shocked.

Some would characterize Dr. Sarfati as the fish in the barrel. I think that’s a mistake. About 1/3rd of the audience at UBC was sympathetic to his point and more so at UBCO. Where we should be concerned is that this guy isn’t even a good speaker! His arguments by creationist standards are bad! And he’s a jerk too! The point being, if someone this poorly informed is allowed to direct the conversation on evolution in universities, skeptics may find themselves in a difficult position down the road where they occupy a small minority in lecture halls where creationism and evolution are taught as two legitimate theories of biology and any attempt to criticize this bizarre scenario results in the threat of a head lock. A head lock that encompasses all forms of rational discourse, scientific inquiry and public education.

 

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 248 other followers