Category Science

How to defend the Enlightenment

How to defend the Enlight­en­ment:

On the pub­lic­a­tion of his new book In Defence of the Enlight­en­ment, Tzvetan Todorov tells Brit­ish philo­sopher AC Grayling why the Enlight­en­ment must be sep­ar­ated from sci­ent­ism and cul­tural chauvinism.

Science confirms: conservatives are a bunch of scaredy-cats

Nich­olas D. Kris­toff, writ­ing for the New York Times:

Research­ers have found, for example, that some humans are par­tic­u­larly alert to threats, par­tic­u­larly primed to feel vul­ner­able and per­ceive danger. Those people are more likely to be conservatives.

Do we want brain scanners to read our minds?

Pro­fessor Colin Blakemore assesses the intriguing implic­a­tions of advances in neur­os­cience that have made it pos­sible to com­mu­nic­ate with those in a veget­at­ive state:

Astro­nomy, from Coper­ni­cus on, has trans­formed our view of the place of the earth in the heav­ens. Dar­win changed forever our view of the status of human­ity. Neur­os­cience is likely to chal­lenge our very under­stand­ing of what it is to be a person.

Doctors think you’re a vegetable but you can hear everything they say

I watched The Diving Bell and the But­ter­fly the other night, a film based on real events about a man that is totally para­lysed and can only com­mu­nic­ate by blink­ing his eye.

But this is some­thing else, amaz­ing:

For seven years the man lay in a hos­pital bed, show­ing no signs of con­scious­ness since sus­tain­ing a trau­matic brain injury in a car acci­dent. His doc­tors were con­vinced he was in a veget­at­ive state. Until now.

To the aston­ish­ment of his med­ical team, the patient has been able to ­com­mu­nic­ate with the out­side world after sci­ent­ists worked out, in effect, a way to read his thoughts.

They devised a tech­nique to enable the man, now 29, to answer yes and no to simple ques­tions through the use of a hi-tech scan­ner, mon­it­or­ing his brain activity.

To answer yes, he was told to think of play­ing ten­nis, a motor activ­ity. To answer no, he was told to think of wan­der­ing from room to room in his home, visu­al­ising everything he would expect to see there, cre­at­ing activ­ity in the part of the brain gov­ern­ing spa­tial awareness.

His doc­tors were amazed when the patient gave the cor­rect answers to a series of ques­tions about his family.

Iraq to sue U.S., Britain over depleted uranium bombs

Press TV:

Iraq’s Min­istry for Human Rights will file a law­suit against Bri­tain and the US over their use of depleted uranium bombs in Iraq, an Iraqi min­is­ter says.

Accord­ing to Iraqi experts, the U.S. and Bri­tain, being the lov­ers of free­dom and demo­cracy that they are:

… bombed the coun­try with nearly 2,000 tons of depleted uranium bombs dur­ing the early years of the Iraq war. Atomic radi­ation has increased the num­ber of babies born with defects in the south­ern provinces of Iraq.

Change blindness

Spooky. Click through for the video.

Oil lobby behind climate change denial

Cli­mate change deni­al­ism fas­cin­ates me. How does one become a deni­al­ist in the face of sci­entific con­sensus? Hav­ing talked to people who exhibit vari­ous levels of denial and scep­ti­cism my hunch is that it’s an inherit psy­cho­lo­gical defect of humans. People can’t bring them­selves to accept that they might be partly respons­ible for a crime of such enorm­ity, so they deny. A clas­sic psy­cho­lo­gical response.

But while this might explain why so many are ready and will­ing to be duped into think­ing man-made cli­mate change is a con­spir­acy, it doesn’t seem to explain why so many are duped. Turns out there’s an explan­a­tion for that:

Think envir­on­ment­al­ists are stooges? You’re the unwit­ting recruit of a hugely power­ful oil lobby – I’ve got the proof.

I have placed on the Guardian’s web­site four case stud­ies; each of which provides a shock­ing example of how the denial industry works.

Remem­ber this the next time you hear people claim­ing that cli­mate sci­ent­ists are only in it for the money, or that envir­on­ment­al­ists are try­ing to cre­ate a com­mun­ist world gov­ern­ment: these ideas were devised and broad­cast by energy com­pan­ies. The people who inform me, appar­ently without irony, that “your art­icle is an ad hom­inem attack, you four-eyed, big-nosed, com­mie sack of shit”, or “you scare­mon­gers will des­troy the entire world eco­nomy and take us back to the Stone Age”, are the unwit­ting recruits of cam­paigns they have never heard of.

Australian Prime Minister on climate change sceptics

Aus­tralian Prime Min­is­ter on cli­mate change scep­tics:

… these do-nothing cli­mate change scep­tics are pre­pared to des­troy our children’s future … cli­mate change skep­tics in all their guises and dis­guises are not con­ser­vat­ives. They are rad­ic­als. They are reck­less gam­blers who are bet­ting all our futures on their arrog­ant assump­tion that their intu­itions should tri­umph over the evidence.

My mes­sage to the cli­mate change skep­tics … is this: You are bet­ting our children’s future and the future of our grand­chil­dren. You are bet­ting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our eco­nomy and our future on an intu­ition – on a gut feel­ing; on a polit­ical pre­ju­dice you have about science.

Climate change denial spreading like a contagious disease

George Mon­biot spec­u­lates on reas­ons for the spread of cli­mate change denial.

There is no point in deny­ing it: we’re los­ing. Cli­mate change denial is spread­ing like a con­ta­gious disease.

There are some obvi­ous answers … But there might also be a less intu­it­ive reason, which shines a light into a fas­cin­at­ing corner of human psychology ..

How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All’

Amy Wal­lace writ­ing for Wired: An Epi­demic of Fear: How Pan­icked Par­ents Skip­ping Shots Endangers Us All:

The rejec­tion of hard-won know­ledge is by no means a new phe­nomenon. In 1905, French math­em­atician and sci­ent­ist Henri Poin­caré said that the will­ing­ness to embrace pseudo-science flour­ished because people “know how cruel the truth often is, and we won­der whether illu­sion is not more con­sol­ing.” Dec­ades later, the astro­nomer Carl Sagan reached a sim­ilar con­clu­sion: Sci­ence loses ground to pseudo-science because the lat­ter seems to offer more com­fort. “A great many of these belief sys­tems address real human needs that are not being met by our soci­ety,” Sagan wrote of cer­tain Amer­ic­ans’ embrace of rein­carn­a­tion, chan­nel­ing, and extra­ter­restri­als. “There are unsat­is­fied med­ical needs, spir­itual needs, and needs for com­mu­nion with the rest of the human community.”

Look­ing back over human his­tory, ration­al­ity has been the anom­aly. Being rational takes work, edu­ca­tion, and a sober determ­in­a­tion to avoid mak­ing hasty infer­ences, even when they appear to make per­fect sense. Much like infec­tious dis­eases them­selves — beaten back by dec­ades of effort to vac­cin­ate the popu­lace — the irra­tional lingers just below the sur­face, wait­ing for us to let down our guard.

And an anec­dote from Brent Simmon’s in response.

Via Dar­ing Fire­ball.