The Impossibility of Re-Creating Religions

I've never read Penn Jillette's book God, No!, but I love this quote from it:

There is no god, and that's the simple truth. If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.

I'd make a stronger claim, namely that the myths of all major religions are so absurd that any new religions would be wholly different. The reason is simple: they're fantasies based on the desire to believe. Science, in contrast, is based on observations of empirical facts. That's the difference that makes all the difference!

Read more...

The Oddity of the Falling Slinky

This floating slinky effect is pretty awesome, but the discussion of it in terms of "information" and "knowledge" makes me cringe! There's no knowledge involved whatsoever! Instead, the removal of the upward force of tension does not happen instantaneously, but rather requires some time to propagate, due to the structure of the slinky.



Via Gizmodo

Read more...

Evolutionary Theory: Fact Versus Faith

Should evolution be taught in schools? I can't help but laugh as these Miss USA contestants answer that question... but then I want to cry.



Evolutionary theory is the integrating theory of biology. As such, it should be a major part of middle and high school biology. Alas, it's not, and the result is the widespread acceptance of blatantly faith-based views like those expressed in this video.

When I taught introductory philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, I'd spend a day discussing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains the supposedly mysterious order and complexity of living beings cited by Paley's analogical argument for God's existence via purely natural law. Hence, the existence of a divine designer cannot be inferred from the complexity and order of life.

Before starting that class, I'd ask my students whether they'd studied evolutionary theory before. Only about two-thirds of them had done so. That was bad enough, but even worse, most of those students were utterly confused about evolutionary theory, usually thinking it to be nothing more than sheer random variation.

When young people aren't taught the basic facts of biology, is it any wonder that they default to religious superstition and myth?

Read more...

Doonesbury on Creationism

I'm not a Doonesbury reader, but the July 10th strip on teaching creationism was just too perfect to ignore.

Also, be sure to check out this classic strip from 2005 on the real-life implications of creationism.

Read more...

A Lesson from Horse Teeth

Here's a simple lesson from a new study: evolution is sloooooooooow.

[Evolutionary biologist] Nikos Solounias helped develop a methodology known as dental mesowear analysis to reconstruct the diets of extinct species by measuring food-related wear and tear on fossil teeth. He and [Matthew] Mihlbachler used the process to investigate wear patterns on the molars of thousands of fossil horses. They later analyzed their data alongside records of North American climate changes that would have shifted the animals' diets from rainforest fruits and woody, leafy vegetation to the more abrasive diets found in grasslands.

"Lag time in the evolution of horse teeth in comparison to dietary changes is critical," Mihlbachler explained. "We found that evolutionary changes in tooth anatomy lag behind the dietary changes by a million years or more."

(H/T: Bil Danielson)

Read more...

Cats Versus Dog in Zero-G

These cats didn't seem to enjoy zero-gravity:



In contrast, this dog seems totally fine with weightlessness:



(Via MeFi.)

Read more...

Radiation Risk From TSA Scanners?

A friend recently asked my opinion about the possible health risks from the new whole body "backscatter" x-ray scanners now being used by the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) at many airports.

The short answer is that the radiation risk from the TSA scanners is minimal for a member of the general flying public. (This is separate from privacy concerns -- or the fact that the bad choice offered to passengers between intrusive x-rays vs. an intrusive physical exam is a problem ultimately caused by our government's inept foreign policy.) Hence, my personal approach when I fly will be to go through the full-body scanners rather than undergo the aggressive new pat-down searches.

The news media has recently given a lot of attention to the following letter sent several months ago by scientists/physicians at UCSF (Univ. California at San Francisco) to the federal government about the radiation risks: "Letter of Concern", 4/6/2010.

This NPR story from last spring that covers the details more fully: "Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners", 5/17/2010. The NPR story also includes a sidebar listing the radiation dose generated by a TSA scanner, and comparing it to the dose one receives merely from being on a transcontinental flight, regular environmental exposure, getting a chest x-ray, etc.

Basically, just getting on a transcontinental flight exposes one to roughly 1,000 times more radiation than undergoing a TSA body scan. (This is because there is less atmospheric protection from natural solar/cosmic radiation at high altitude.)

The FDA has posted its own response to the UCSF letter: "Response to University of California - San Francisco Regarding Their Letter of Concern", 10/12/2010.

First let me note that I am philosophically opposed to the FDA and other such regulatory bodies, on the grounds that they do not serve proper functions of government. But to the best of my knowledge, the FDA's scientific arguments in that specific response are essentially correct. And the FDA letter also addresses some of the technical issues raised by the UCSF scientists, such as the question of the TSA radiation being deposited mostly in the skin (vs. in the whole body).

Female passengers who are (or may be) pregnant while undergoing a TSA scan may also wonder about radiation effects on a developing fetus.

This web page from Duke University covers this topic nicely: "Fetal Radiation Dose Estimates." As a point of clarification, the Duke website uses the older units (rems and millirems) for radiation dose rather than the newer units (Sieverts, milliSv, etc.). The conversion factor is:

1 Sievert = 100 rem or
1 milliSievert = 100 millirem

As the Duke website notes, if the fetus exposure to less than 1,000 millirem (10 milliSieverts), then there's no known risk to the fetus.

If the fetus exposure is between 1,000 and 10,000 millirem (10-100 milliSieverts), then then the fetus is probably still ok. But, this is the range where bad effects to a fetus start to be observable in some studies, using the most conservative (cautious) statistical criteria.

So if a pregnant passenger wishes to take the most cautious approach and keep her fetal exposure below the 1,000 millirem (10 milliSievert) range, she could still undergo thousands of TSA scans per year. Again, the radiation exposure caused merely by flying would far exceed that caused by the scanner. Furthermore, most of the TSA scanner radiation would be stopped at the skin before it could even reach the fetus, as opposed to the various forms of natural gamma and solar radiation received during the flight which would penetrate deeper into the body.

A pregnant woman might naturally wonder how much radiation she'd be exposed to from the air travel itself?

According to this aviation news website, if she logged 1,000 hours in the air, then she'd be at the 5-10 milliSievert range (depending on the exact altitude/route), which is the level where one might begin to be concerned: "Radiation Exposure Aloft -- Are You Being Nuked?."

So if she took 10 flights during her pregnancy totaling, say, 40 hours of air time, then that should be no problem. But she were an airline pilot or a frequent business traveler logging 1,000 hours of air time per year, then it might become a genuine issue, using the most conservative estimates for fetal exposure.

This discussion makes two important assumptions, including:

1) The TSA scanners are actually functioning properly and operating within the limits claimed by the government. Of course, if a particular machine malfunctions in a way that it produces too much radiation, then all bets are off.

2) The passenger doesn't have any special medical conditions that make him or her more sensitive to radiation than the general public.

Finally, this discussion applies only to the "backscatter" type of TSA scanner, which uses ionizing x-ray radiation. The other type of whole body TSA scanner uses "millimeter wave" technology, which does not involve ionizing x-ray radiation and does not have the same type of carcinogenic effect. Otherwise, I don't have any specialized knowledge about that particular technology and thus can't comment about any other health effects.

Conclusion: From a radiation safety perspective, it's generally safe to go through the TSA "backscatter" x-ray scanner.

Read more...

Open Thread on Induction

In the comment thread on The Resignation of John McCaskey: The Facts, some people expressed an interest in discussing the questions about induction raised by David Harriman's book, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. Yesterday, I said that people were welcome to discuss that in that comment thread. However, given that that post has over 200 comments, I realized that it would be better to simply create an open thread for that topic.

Hence, this post. As with the post on the facts of Dr. McCaskey's resignation, I expect any commenters to adhere to high standards of civility, even when in violent disagreement.

Read more...

Art, Say Hello to Science

A Closer Look at Evolutionary Faces:

To recreate the faces of our early ancestors, some of whom have been extinct for millions of years, sculptor John Gurche dissected the heads of modern humans and apes, mapping patterns of soft tissue and bone. He used this information to fill out the features of the fossils. Each sculpture starts with the cast of a fossilized skull; Gurche then adds layers of clay muscle, fat and skin. Seven of his finished hominid busts will be featured at the National Museum of Natural History’s David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, which opens March 17. They are perhaps the best-researched renderings of their kind.

Go check out the pictures here.

Read more...

Science Contaminated by Government

In prior posts, I've recommended this New Yorker article on the widespread problem of olive oil contamination: Slippery Business. That risk of contamination is one reason why I prefer to cook with coconut oil, lard, and butter.

This fascinating story about the possibility of massive government corruption of science might be a case when "toxic oil" was not to blame. In the early 1980s, a mysterious outbreak of illness in Spain left hundreds dead and thousands seriously injured. It was quickly blamed on contaminated cooking oil. In 1989, some oil producers were sent to prison, even though the supposed toxin in the oil was never identified. Similarly, as even supporters of the standard account admit, scientists haven't ever been able to reproduce the symptoms of the supposedly toxic oil in lab animals.

Even worse, even the epidemiological data looks like it was corrupted by a young government determined to quell the panic. The article says:

In order to demonstrate that the oil had caused the illness, government scientists needed to be able to show, for example, that families who had bought the oil were affected, whereas those who hadn't were not; that the aniline in the oil was indeed poisonous and that the victims were suffering from aniline poisoning; and, bearing in mind that such commercial cooking oil fraud had been widespread for years, just what had changed in the manufacturing process to cause the oil suddenly to become so poisonous. To this day, none of these basic conditions has been met.

You'll find the details in the article. The most fundamental problem is simply that the cause and the effects don't seem to match up: many sick people didn't consume the supposedly toxic oil, many oil-consuming people didn't become sick. And that's just for starters.

Do I know what happened here? Of course not. The article might be mere conspiracy-mongering; the author might be twisting the facts to manufacture doubt and controversy where none should exist. Or perhaps the author's complaints and doubts are completely justified. I can only say that, if the article is accurate in its basic information, the government's story doesn't merely smell fishy: it's stinks to high heaven.

The simple fact is that governments cannot be trusted with science. Scientists at the government trough are often quickly wedded to grand theories based on political pressure rather than evidence. Then, because they seek to maintain public trust above all else, they cling to those grand theories as dogmas, even as contrary data accumulates. In the process, they often cause serious harm to people by preventing them from living as well as they might -- or preventing them from living at all.

Essentially, to the extent that science is affected by political pressure, it works on the principle of stare decisis -- meaning "maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established." To support their political paymasters, scientists must adhere to precedent, however wrong.

Of course, some scientists might be willing to buck political pressures, but they risk being marginalized or fired for speaking out. Others might be more remote from those pressures, and so able to do good work in quiet. But for any politically warm topic, I trust government science as much as I trust the State Science Institute on Rearden Metal -- meaning, not at all.

Read more...

How Do You Know If Anybody Is Home?

One of the big stories to hit the science blogosphere last week was about Rom Houben, a man who reportedly was (erroneously) believed by his physicians to be in a coma for 23 years after an accident whereas in reality he was conscious all along but paralyzed and unable to communicate this fact to the outside world.

As reported, the fact of his consciousness was only recently discovered with advanced brain scanning techniques not available to physicians at the time of his accident in 1983.

Some follow-up stories have raised the question about the accuracy of the details of his account, especially because it uses "facilitated communication". James Randi raises similar concerns.

But leaving aside the debate over that particular question, I'd like to pose a broader mixed question about scientific testing for consciousness.

From a scientific and medical standpoint, it would clearly be valuable to know if there were a specific test that could determine if a person was truly comatose vs. "conscious but unable to communicate". In other words, it would be extremely valuable to be able to test a seemingly comatose patient and determine whether there was "anybody home", or there were only the bodily shell of what used to be a person.

It's certainly plausible that some sort of scientific test might currently (or some day in the future) answer that question. But I'm not asking whether or not some particular current brain scanning technology actually answers this question.

Instead, suppose that some day a neuroscientist claims, "I've invented a machine that will reliably predict the presence or absence of consciousness. If such-and-such pattern of brain activity is present, then the patient is conscious. If that pattern is not present, then the patient is not conscious."

My questions are as follows:

1) Would it be possible for a scientist to ever prove such a claim?

After all, consciousness is a subjective phenomenon that one experiences "from the inside". In contrast, scientists can detect and measure brain activities which may be correlated with consciousness (such as a certain pattern of firing of neurons or a certain pattern of metabolic activity within the brain), but that's that the same as detecting consciousness.

There are some schools of modern philosophical thought which claim that consciousness is equivalent to (and nothing more than) a specific type of brain activity. If one believes that, then the answer would presumably be "yes", and the question would become purely an issue of science.

But in contrast, if one believes that consciousness is not equivalent to a specific pattern of brain activity (although related to the actions of the human brain in a still-not-fully-understood fashion), then the issue becomes murkier, leading to my next two questions:

2) Would a rational philosophy have anything to say about what would or would not be possible for scientists to claim? And would philosophers be able to give guidance as to what would constitute a proper standard of proof?

3) Or would no such claim by the neuroscientist possible? In other words, would a scientist only be able to claim that he is measuring an objective process that is highly probable to be correlated with a subjective sensation of consciousness -- and that's all anyone can ever do?

Or more colloquially:

1) Can you know if someone is home?
2) Can you know that you know it?
3) Or can you never really know it?

I freely admit that I don't know the answers to these questions. But I'd be interested in hearing from others who might be able to shed some light -- either scientific or philosophical.

Read more...

Atoms Are Really Small

This slick interactive image allows us to conceptualize how small atoms are relative to other objects.

Just drag the slider underneath the image from left to right.

(Link via Radley Balko.)

Here's the related classic "Powers of Ten" video:

Read more...

The Flame Game, Geek Style

A note titled "Alright Men" arrived in my inbox from an old friend, cluing me in to a local tradition which was apparently gaining some fame:

You haven't got a hair on you a$$ unless you've done Flying Pie's double habanero pizza. "Man vs. Food" (on the Travel Channel) is doing it this Friday ... not to be outdone, I did it tonight (4, count 'em, four slices) while my co- challenger (not-to-be-named) managed only 2. So, the question is are you man enough?

He went on to challenge all comers to meet him at Flying Pie any time during the month and give it a go (August is the only time of year they serve this monstrosity). Another recipient quickly replied:

What a load of crap. Were you wearing a pink skirt when you did that?

I bet I wouldn't even break a sweat.

Unfortunately, I am busy any night that you want to do the competition, so I guess I will have to pass. Although, the record books should show that if I wasn't already scheduled for something I haven't thought of yet, that I would eat 5 with no ice cream.

Whoohooo! Winner.

In the end, there was just one fool taker for his challenge, so naturally my friend expanded his campaign of peer pressure:

OK, ladies, only [one of you] is man enough to take me up on this ... Once [he] and I get a time and place scheduled, I'll let everyone know so if you want to come by, you can see how men eat. And, who knows, maybe some of you will check your ovaries at the door and join us.

At this point several of us fell prey to his irresistible powers of persuasion (he's a lawyer). If I had to pick out what made mere words so effective, I would put testosterone poisoning at the top of the list, well known for its capacity to dampen volition. The better part of a dozen males signed on, but no females, which indicates a significant causal factor by Mills Methods of Induction. (As many females as males did attend, but only to mock the guys' idiocy.)

Alright, so Flying Pie will spread diced habanero on pizzas like it's just another flavor of cheese or something, and now we had a shared-strife male-ego-driven test of wills based on it. Being a certified geek, I reflexively broke out some research to see just how ugly this little adventure might turn... and what I might do to better survive it.

First Question: Just how hot are we talking? It turns out that habanero chilies have a Scoville hotness value in the 200,000-300,000 range. (My prior pepper experience topped out at the hotness of the jalapeno pepper, which lands in the comparatively wimpy range of 2,500-10,000.) The Scoville scale is based on dilution into sugar syrup until the heat can't be detected by a panel of five people, presumably selected by their high levels of testosterone. Bottom line? They are saying the heat of a teaspoon of habanero only stops being noticeable when you mix it into about 400 gallons of sugar syrup. Jesus.

Obvious Second Question: Can it harm me physically? The Scoville scale is basically a measure of the level of capsaicin in the peppers. Capsaicin is a chemical that binds to and stimulates nerve endings, especially in mucus membranes, creating that burning sensation. But it's only a sensation of burning -- the consensus seems to be that capsaicin does not itself cause any physical damage when you eat it, though exposure at high enough concentrations could cause irritation, which if great enough could bring "nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and burning diarrhea." So I might hurl -- or come to more fully appreciate the lyrics to a certain Johnny Cash tune the next day, as the pizzeria staff was so helpfully suggesting we would -- but whatever hell my nerve endings might go through, I should come through it with at worst psychological scars.

Third Question: Any chance for a prophylactic... or failing that, an antidote? Sure, everyone has a prescription, and I vaguely remembered a Mythbusters episode that looked them over. Those guys can be pretty objective, so I looked up their results. The upshot? All the various methods, from drinking beer to tequila shots to coating your mouth with Vaseline (ugh) to eating wasabi (wtf!?) and so on are basically crap. They found that your best bet for putting out the fire is to simply drink milk. Others who study such things explain, "Milk contains casein, a lipophilic (fat-loving) substance that surrounds and washes away the fatty capsaicin molecules in much the same way that soap washes away grease." Sweet! I had my secret weapon: just swish and swallow a bunch of milk before, during, and after the ordeal! Maybe this would let me make it through an entire slice and demonstrate my extreme manliness.

So I called up Flying Pie to ask if they served milk. Then I asked, in my most virile tone, if they had a big, tough mug I could drink it from. Hooked. Up.

The evening arrived and we assembled around the table, eyes watering from just the smell of the peppers. I was still wondering just how much the milk could help... 300,000 is a big number. Then our official judge kicked it off! I was careful not to chew any more than necessary (why make a bad situation worse by spreading the capsaicin around?) -- so I was biting off and swallowing hunks of the deadly pie with my best horse-pill-eating technique. Hoo boy! The staff said that the "Man vs. Food" guy gave up in something like two bites, and now I appreciated why. Within about ten seconds I learned I should try to wash every bite down with milk, and to maybe do some extra swishing between slices.

And it was working! Two of us quickly left the others behind, downing slice after slice. He was doing the horse-pill thing, too, but he wasn't using milk. Damn, who is that masked man? Turns out he was none other than The Ringer -- a guy who apparently used to eat whole habaneros right off the plant while gardening. After I'd eaten about 8.5 slices, and just when someone was about to order yet another of the deadly concoctions, the fog of competition cleared long enough for me to see that he would surely go on matching me slice for slice (and staying ahead by one) until my already-full stomach burst.

So I gave my concession toast, ending the ordeal.

I could tell my stomach was none too pleased with me for this gastric offense, but I indeed suffered no ill effects. And I was finally in a position to verify that Johnny Cash was on to something... it's a fact: we don't digest all of the capsaicin we ingest.

Read more...

Feynman on Mirrors

Legendary CalTech physicist Richard Feynman discusses the classic logic problem, "Why do mirrors reverse left-right but not top-bottom?"



Don't click through unless you want to hear the answer.

Read more...

Feyman's Nobel Banquet Speech

My earlier post on physicist Richard Feynman ("Feynman on Honors") spawned an intense discussion on whether Feynman's stated disdain for what he called "honors" indicated a rejection of justice.

In light of that, I'd like to post the text of his Nobel Banquet Speech delivered in Stockholm on December 10, 1965, followed by a few of my own comments.

Here is what he said:

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The work I have done has, already, been adequately rewarded and recognized.

Imagination reaches out repeatedly trying to achieve some higher level of understanding, until suddenly I find myself momentarily alone before one new corner of nature's pattern of beauty and true majesty revealed. That was my reward.

Then, having fashioned tools to make access easier to the new level, I see these tools used by other men straining their imaginations against further mysteries beyond. There, are my votes of recognition.

Then comes the prize, and a deluge of messages. Reports; of fathers turning excitedly with newspapers in hand to wives; of daughters running up and down the apartment house ringing neighbor's doorbells with news; victorious cries of "I told you so" by those having no technical knowledge - their successful prediction being based on faith alone; from friends, from relatives, from students, from former teachers, from scientific colleagues, from total strangers; formal commendations, silly jokes, parties, presents; a multitude of messages in a multitude of forms.

But, in each I saw the same two common elements. I saw in each, joy; and I saw affection (you see, whatever modesty I may have had has been completely swept away in recent days).

The prize was a signal to permit them to express, and me to learn about, their feelings. Each joy, though transient thrill, repeated in so many places amounts to a considerable sum of human happiness. And, each note of affection released thus one upon another has permitted me to realize a depth of love for my friends and acquaintances, which I had never felt so poignantly before.

For this, I thank Alfred Nobel and the many who worked so hard to carry out his wishes in this particular way.

And so, you Swedish people, with your honors, and your trumpets, and your king - forgive me. For I understand at last - such things provide entrance to the heart. Used by a wise and peaceful people they can generate good feeling, even love, among men, even in lands far beyond your own. For that lesson, I thank you...

I found the following aspects of his remarks especially noteworthy:

1) For him, his achievement was its own reward.

As a scientist, his primary orientation was towards reality and existence, as opposed to a second-hander's orientation towards other people. He eloquently noted the joy a brilliant scientist feels when, "...suddenly I find myself momentarily alone before one new corner of nature's pattern of beauty and true majesty revealed".

In that moment of achievement, it's him "alone" with nature.

2) He acknowledged and was justly appreciative of the recognition he received from his peers in the form of having his work "used by other men straining their imaginations against further mysteries beyond".

3) He recognized his winning the Nobel Prize served as a focal point by which others who might not understand much about physics could still offer their own appreciation and praise of his work. Although his primary motivation as a physicist was to unlock the secrets of nature, rather than to garner praise from others, he was genuinely appreciative of the praise he received from "friends and acquaintances".

And he returned their praise with a "depth of love" which he "had never felt so poignantly before".

In my experience, this sort of benevolence towards one's fellow man is possible only to those who are independent in a very deep way -- i.e., not primarily trying to seek the approval (or avoid the disapproval) of others.

4) He recognized that "honors" awarded by a "wise and peaceful people" were commendable. Hence, I think he had an implicit understanding of what Objectivists mean by "justice".

(I do acknowledge that his quote in the earlier post could be interpreted to indicate that he did not believe that "honors" were a form of justice.)

5) I'm not an expert on the biography or psychology of Richard Feynman, although I have read some of his books.

But my understanding of his attitude towards his work was that he was incredibly first-handed.

In that way, he was similar to Hank Rearden, as portrayed by Rand in Part 1, Chapter 8 of Atlas Shrugged ("The John Galt Line") as follows:

...[Rearden] was watching the performance of track and train with an expert's intensity of professional interest; his bearing suggested that he would kick aside, as irrelevant, any thought such as "They like it," when the thought ringing in his mind was "It works!"

Of course, Rand was not saying that all thoughts such as "They like it" are "irrelevant". After all, one of the key themes of Atlas Shrugged was the importance of granting approval and moral sanction to those who deserve it (and withdrawing it from those who do not deserve it).

But it's also clear from Rand's portrayals of Howard Roark or Hank Rearden, that an independent first-handed thinker would find others' praise of his work ("They like it") to be irrelevant to the primary reward that the creator gains from his achievement -- namely the work itself. This issue is separate from the fact that justice is a virtue and that in a healthy society, good men will receive justly-earned praise for their achievements.

My own take on Feynman was that because he was so extremely first-handed in his attitude towards his work, he viewed others' praise of his work as extremely secondary to the primary reward he gained from the work itself, which may have caused him to regard such praise as "unreal", just as Hank Rearden regarded others' approval of Rearden Metal as "irrelevant" to the primary reward of knowing that "it worked".

But Feynman was clearly still appreciative and thankful for the praise that he did receive when it came from those whom he esteemed. And in his Nobel Banquet speech, he expressed that gratitude with great warmth and benevolence.

To summarize: I found Feynman's first-handed attitude towards his work to be a rare and admirable trait. And given the fuller context provided by his Nobel Banquet Speech, I believe he also had at least an implicit appreciation for the Objectivist virtue of justice.

Read more...

Feynman on Honors

Physicist Richard Feynman explains why he doesn't like honors:

"I don't like honors. I'm appreciated for the work that I did, and for people who appreciate it, and I notice that other physicists use my work. I don't need anything else. I don't think there's any sense to anything else. I don't see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize. I've already got the prize. The prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it. Those are the real things. The honors are unreal to me. I don't believe in honors. It bothers me, honors..."

This is a good gut-level response of a man who is a primary creator of value, as opposed to a second-hander.

Read more...

Your Evolution Dollars At Work: Chicken Head Tracking!

In honor of Darwin's 200th birthday, here's a little evolutionary coolness to make you smile -- and want to go play with a chicken!



Seriously, this is an awesome set of adaptations; just think of the myriad feedback mechanisms at work! Plus, it made me smile... and now I want to go play with a chicken.

Read more...

Real Life Crow Epistemology

Although I think it would be a stretch to call what crows are doing here "reasoning", crows may be smarter than people generally give them credit for:

Crows make monkeys out of chimps in mental test
17 September 2008

Crows seem to be able to use causal reasoning to solve a problem, a feat previously undocumented in any other non-human animal, including chimps.

Alex Taylor at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and his team presented six New Caledonian crows with a series of "trap-tube" tests.

A choice morsel of food was placed in a horizontal Perspex tube, which also featured two round holes in the underside, with Perspex traps below.

For most of the tests, one of the holes was sealed, so the food could be dragged across it with a stick and out of the tube to be eaten. The other hole was left open, trapping the food if the crows moved it the wrong way.

Three of the crows solved the task consistently, even after the team modified the appearance of the equipment. This suggested that these crows weren't using arbitrary features – such as the colour of the rim of a hole – to guide their behaviour. Instead they seemed to understand that if they dragged food across a hole, they would lose it...

Read more...

Slime Mold!

I vaguely recall doing a report for my ninth grade biology class on slime mold. However, I don't recall pictures anywhere near this cool. (Via MR.)

Read more...

Noodles and Atoms

For a blog called "NoodleFood", we don't often use actual noodles to illustrate interesting ideas. I'm going to correct this deficiency right now. Here's a classic video using noodles to illustrate powers of 2, as well as to discuss about the size of atoms:



(Via Marginal Revolution.)

Read more...