Science Is Unspeakably Cruel!

Curse you, science.

What in the Sam Hill….? The Bad Idea Blog Now Comes in Audiobook Format?

I don’t have the slightest idea what’s going on here: but as far as I can tell, a robot liked my post on the Florida creationism bill so much that it decided to read it out loud on YouTube in a lilting monotone. Unless you happen to be visually impaired (in which case you could just use a screen reader) this seems like a pretty inefficient way to consume blog postings. I don’t quite get it.

But, anyhow, kudos for the little illustration at the end, mysterious content recycler “Ishta5″: apparently even the meta tags for the Expelled! website don’t bother to conceal the film’s creationism/religious connections, hard-on for Hitler, obsession with atheism, or even a big ole’ shout out to the Discovery Institute.

This is probably as good a time as any to declare all my content to be free, reproducible, and non-copyrighted. I do, however, request that in-line commenting be enabled whenever possible… for everything everywhere.

Think You Can See the Dead? Skeptics Can’t Wait to Test Your Brain and Find Out

One of my favorite articles of blogging past was the piece I did on “Spiritualism Camps” in which I mused over just how it was that a camp counselor medium like Judy Ulch could litterally see “stubble on their faces” of ghosts.  Just today I received the first and only comment on the piece… and was given a terrible review.  “Jean” even said that I looked stupid: trying to apply scientific hypothesizing to spirits, pshaw!  I’m crushed.

Of course, Jean was apparently so outraged by the mere idea of examining spiritual phenomenon that she didn’t bother to read far enough to see all her complaints addressed.  And her post did spark an bright idea of bloggy  back-issue synergism.

You see, just last week I came across a story about some scientists at Berkeley who are working on an MRI technique that could potentially allow scientists to reconstruct the images that a brain is seeing. Now, for mediums like Judy Ulch to be registering anything ghostly as a visual image at all, let alone something detailed enough to have distinct facial features, it almost certainly has to show up in her brain.  And if we can reconstruct that image… well you probably see where I’m going with this.  If we can see what they see, then we can see if they really see what they say they see.  See?

Of course, most mediums will probably balk at the very idea of testing their powers of paranormal perception in such a definitive fashion, and are as unlikely to let scientists strap them into an MRI machine set up in the middle of an Indian burial ground as they were to take James Randi’s million dollar challenge.

Which is a sad thing really.  If spirits really did exist, and mediums really could perceive them, then even a failure in this case could teach us all something.  That is, if a ghostly visage fails to appear on the processed MRI scan at the moment the medium claims to see one, then at the very least we’ve been able to rule out yet another false model of how spirit images work.  We could rule out all sorts of things in fact:

• The possibility that mediums have special rods and cones in their eyes that allow them to detect spiritual radiation.
• That any kind of optical image (light waves hit the ghost, bounce off, are captured by human eyes, etc.) is involved at all.
• That mediums are really “seeing” the ghosts in any meaningful sense, as opposed to the ghostly gaze being somehow superimposed onto the mental results of regular vision.

And of course, there’s always the possibility that spirits would show up on the MRI technique, in which case mediums would be vindicated and heralded as ingenious and overlooked pioneers in a entirely new realm of scientific exploration.

I’m game.  I bet most skeptics would be.  All we have to lose is the money for the use of the machine.  What we have to gain, however, is knowledge, one way or the other.  Sounds good to me.

So how about it, mediums?  Ready to do your part for human knowledge?

Book Meme Corner: Women With Over-developed Nervous Systems and How to Irradiate Your Face

Ah, blogging memes. I’m not a huge fan in general, but Secundum Artem has tagged me with one, and I’ll dutifully follow along. The memeceedure here is:

1. Go to page 123 of the nearest book.
2. Find the 5th sentence.
3. Write down the next 3 sentences.

The actual nearest book to me was Medicine in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, 1810-1976, but unfortunately page 123 lacks enough full sentences and is merely an extremely dry recitation of institutions in any case. Lest you think the book is a total waste though, it does include a long and amusingly sage and serious discussion of homeopathy, as well as recounting the 1881 gynecological lectures of one Dr. Henry Justus Herrick, in which he apparently attributed women’s uterine problems to, among other things, the “overwork of the brain and excessive development of the nervous system.” You’ve come a long way, medicine!

MRI Mind Reading: Reconstucting Visual Images, Even Dreams, Straight from a Brain Scan

This is fascinating stuff: researchers at the University of California at Berkeley are already testing out a form of MRI scan that can reliably discern what sorts of images people are looking at when the scan is performed. They are claiming that with refinement, this technology may be able to reconstruct entire visual images just from brain scans alone, perhaps even including the non-sensory images in people’s vivid memories or dreams (We still aren’t positive that these latter images map to the visual cortex in quite the same way as direct sensory images, but there’s plenty of tantalizing circumstantial evidence that they do).

I’m a little skeptical of the idea of reconstructing new images without pre-observing them: the way the brain actually maps out different details in an image is probably not anywhere near as simple as a sort of linear pixel map. The “data” might be heavily layered or interpreted in ways that make it difficult to reconstruct, just as optical illusions produce experiences of visual effects that aren’t there on the paper itself. The scientists may currently be observing predictable inputs to the system and getting reliable hits off of that, but that’s no guarantee that the particular sorts of things they are looking at can easily translate right back into normal images again. The best that might be possible would be statistical generalizations (i.e. we can tell that he’s looking at something square, or something blue, but can’t reproduce the exact contours and fine details of what it is).

Still, very cool, and I can’t wait to see if more really is possible.

I’m not sure I really see the potential privacy worries mentioned though: the technique is essentially just a proof of concept that visual perceptions are mapped onto the brain in a mechanical fashion. Considering that a subject would have to be strapped into a huge MRI machine in order to do a scan, and that the scan could only reproduce what the patient was currently looking at, this seems more like the most expensive way imaginable to look at a Polaroid rather than getting into “thought-crime” territory. The machine doesn’t observe thoughts, per se: it merely observes what the brain is observing (or, perhaps, envisioning).

And it would be utterly wondrous if scientists could piece together even brief, cloudy snapshots of the images in people’s dreams: allowing others to finally catch a glimpse of what has always been a subjective and isolated experience.

Disclaimer: take this all with a skeptical grain of salt. It’s science journalism after all.

Confusing Science Reporting on Claimed Proof of Natural Selection

A recent Science Daily article blares: “New Findings Confirm Darwin’s Theory: Evolution Not Random” But while the research looks legitimate, and the findings indeed consistent with evolution via natural selection, the article is deeply confusing, and it looks like we have another example of shoddy science journalism on our hands.

New Cloning Success Shocks Vatican: Science Slipping Away from their Pat Narrative

The Vatican, and likely many other pro-life groups, are up in arms about the latest work in human cloning. Such outrage was expected of course, and spokesman Elio Sgreccia, who heads the Pontifical Academy for Life, even tries to push the latest trendy talking point that such research is “a product of the past” supposedly in light of other breakthroughs with adult lines (which is false, so where are our friends at the National Review to bemoan this scientific dishonesty!?).

But one also gets the feeling that this breakthrough is threatening to the pro-life side in more ways than just to their ethical objections to the use of embryos. In fact, it brings forward a number of serious flaws in those very objections.

Scientists Remove Stem Cells from Embryos without Killing Them

I’ve still got an long essay on stem cells in the wings, but couldn’t help highlighting this story: researchers have perfected a method by which stem cells can be removed from developing embryos without inevitably preventing them from developing further.  Pragmatically, this is a hopeful step towards allowing important research to proceed without pissing off large portions of the country.  In terms of science, though, I’d say it’s another pretty dramatic demonstration of how wrong many of the “embryos are morally important people from conception” are about the reality of human reproduction, which is endlessly more complex and ambiguous than this position can account for.

This particular story continues to drive home the point that we’re looking here at a biologic process for building human beings, not the human beings themselves.   That construction process can be stalled or hindered or stopped, but the fact that the cells involved are genetically homo sapien, and that they are playing out instructions on how to build a person, just aren’t compelling reasons to view the process and a rather meager amount of the necessary raw materials as being the end result themselves, any more than a set of blueprints and a hammer are a house.

As the story notes, there is also the question of whether the removed cells would themselves be capable of growing into new people: a point I’ve raised several times in the case of the supposedly more politically-correct adult stem cells.  Reproduction is a particular cellular process, not a spark of magic.  The magic is the final set of functions this process achieves: the feeling, caring, hoping that beings with brains can experience.  A cell alone, nor even a group of them organized into an embryonic template, simply isn’t the same sort of being.

The Power of Moon Compels You!

An Arizona couple has built a device that allows people to “bathe” in moonshine. By which I mean, mirror-concentrated light from the moon. While this is the sort of thing that skeptics often have a good laugh at, I think we should probably cut these folks a little slack.

What they did really is just plain cool, conceptually and from a pure geek standpoint.

Of course, things are definitely inching into woo territory with the visitors claiming that the moonbeams have curative powers. It seems that the concentrated light is warming, which of course feels nice. But unless someone can provide evidence that this warm light is any better for you than standing in front of a heat vent, lets just hope this doesn’t develop into another unproven “natural” treatment for every self-limiting condition under the sun. Er, or under the moon.

I also noted with dismay that the story’s one named skeptical voice on these purported healing powers strayed a bit from the proper tut-tut attitude we generally hope for:

“But whether or not it’s the placebo effect or the light, I don’t think that matters as long as people feel like they are having a positive effect, then it’s worth it to them to do it,” she added. (emphasis added)

No. Bad scientist! Naughty! Don’t endorse the placebo effect!

I guess I should just be happy that the article didn’t mention the mythical Full Moon effect. I mean, the “instant and profound sense of euphoria” that one visitor experienced might actually be a sign of something sinister. After all, if full moons are supposed to increase homicide rates, shouldn’t we be afraid that concentrated moonlight might turn aging hippie hypnotherapists like Eric Carr into serial killers?

Silly Sci-Fi Science: NBC’s Heroes does Antibodies

Good fantasy fiction lets us suspend the rules of our reality in favor of the rules of our imaginations. Of course, imaginary worlds usually still need self-consistency to be satisfying: plot holes can make an audience feel cheated even if straight-up magic is involved. And Science fiction can be even more problematic, primarily because sci-fi writers are often tempted to act as if they are “teaching” the audience authentic scientific principles.

Case in point: while NBC’s Heroes has been an enjoyable show with some well-developed character arcs, the scientific concepts it’s presented have been pretty consistently incoherent. The show gets a free pass on most of the superhero special abilities, of course: things like phasing through walls and stopping time are classic comic book ideas that are just too fun to bother justifying or complaining about. Unfortunately, the show also tries to lecture its audience about seemingly realistic biological and medical principles… and then gets them laughably wrong.

Blue Ghost Video: Amateur Skeptics Trounce Professional Journalists

Here’s someone that actually did their homework in examining the phenomenon of a supposed “blue ghost” seen on a gas station surveillance camera. They observe the situation, form hypotheses, examine the evidence, and even run some tests on the plausibility of their possible explanations for what was seen.

With a little production value, why couldn’t something like this be what gets on TV instead of some poor reporter out trolling for a fluff piece… and then predictably delivering fluff?

The Environment: Population Growth is the Solution, not the Problem!

This woman seems to believe that she’s helping to save the planet by not having any kids. Her math is pretty simple: a few more human beings means less resources, more burden on the environment, and so on. She likes the environment the way it is it seems, and fair enough.

But I think she’s got it totally backwards. Economist Julian Simon had it right, I think: the lesson of human progress is that more people means more minds to solve problems, and we can ultimately solve problems faster than we make them. What matters is not the number of people, but whether they have the education and the political and economic liberty to act and adapt. That doesn’t mean we can’t improve and preserve the natural environment if that’s what we value. It’s just that the only plausible way we’ll be able to do so is via political and technological solutions.

Less kids doesn’t do anything to bring those solutions about, and it just as well might mean less scientists, thinkers, and workers willing to innovate those solutions and then bring them into being. Worse, if she presumably would have raised her kids to care about the environment, it will also just mean a lower percentage of people on the planet that share that value!

Less total people does not necessarily mean more resources consumed in any case. If the supply of human beings is lower, then this means the price of the world’s resources overall will be less (since the supply is the same, but demand has reduced): everyone left could and probably would just ultimately consume more. Less people just means bigger shares of the earth for everyone else, not less consumption period.

So this woman’s decision to sterilize herself is probably pointless, at least insofar as reaching her goal of a cleaner earth. Luckily, someone has already thought of a solution to such poor judgment: tubal ligations can now be surgically reversed!