Altar of Stone

As if advertisers needed more encouragement

2006-11-29T08:32:00.000-05:00

CHICAGO, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- German radiologists say they've found strong brand recognition elicits strong activity in our brains, possibly determining what items we will purchase. "This is the first functional magnetic resonance imaging test examining the power of brands," said Dr. Christine Born, a radiologist at University Hospital in Munich, Germany. "We found that strong brands activate certain areas of the brain independent of product categories."
Born and colleagues used fMRI scans to study 20 adult men and women. While in the scanners, the volunteers were presented with a series of three-second visual stimuli containing the logos of strong (well-known) and weak (lesser-known) brands of car manufacturers and insurance companies.
The results showed strong brands activated a network of areas involved in positive emotional processing and associated with self-identification and rewards. urthermore, strong brands were processed with less effort on the part of the brain. Weak brands showed higher levels of activation in areas of memory and negative emotional response.
Born believes the research will serve as a benchmark to improve the understanding of the processing of brand-related information.

I wonder what the results would have been if they used credit card logos instead of automobile and insurance companies?

Global Warming - Very niiiice

2006-11-27T08:52:00.000-05:00

Science Daily posted this article over the holiday - Level Of Important Greenhouse Gas Has Stopped Growing: Seven-year Stabilization Of Methane May Slow Global Warming.

It says that ...

levels of atmospheric methane have stayed nearly flat for the
past seven years, , which follows a rise that spanned at least two decades..
This finding indicates that methane may no longer be as large a global warming
threat as previously thought, and it provides evidence that methane levels can
be controlled.

Looks like we didn't need to sign the biased Kyoto Accord after all.

Here is what other sites had to offer over the holiday weekend:

CNN.com Global warming already killing species, analysis says
ABCnews.com Confronting 'Forces of Darkness' on Warming
Yahoo.com Scientists: Climate change clues in sky
Earthsky.com Ocean Cooling a global warming "speed bump"?
msnbc.com High court to hear pivotal global warming case

Does anyone else see a pattern here? The Science Daily story speaks of change now. In our lifetime. The others talk of "in 50 or 100 years", or "man is bad". Granted, human emergence as the dominant species and subsequent development of society has affeected many things. Need we blame ourselves for everything? Couldn't "global warming" be natural, cyclical fluctuations inherent to the lifecycle of this planet?

Obviously global warming science must be sound as we have so many other planetary climate systems to draw on for reference . How can we speak of weather, warming, and/or cooling at a global level when my weatherman here can't tell me if its going to rain in 2 days.

Weather is a complex system. A chaotic system. Couple that with the diversity of millions of animals, plants, microbes, etc. living in complex dependant ecosystems and we see that no one can come close to analyzing the entire climate of the Earth. It may never be possible (read will never be possible).

What scientists are doing now is guessing. Guessing large answers based on small data. Making claims about "global warming" that cannot be substatntiated in our lifetime ("No more fish in 50 years", "Artic meltdown in 100 Years", etc.). The are simply attempting to scare us and grab headlines. Most likely to continue receiving the grants and funding they have grown accustom to receiving. Grants they now feel entitled to.

While I cannot say I fully disagree with some of the claims made by global warming alarmists, I would rather they stop presenting their research with shocking headlines when the conclusions reached from said research is vague and ambiguous - a guess. For me the jury is still out on global warming. I am really not too concerned with a 1-2 degree fluctuation in the Earth's temperature. Large volcanic eruptions in the past have done far worse damage than my minivan.

I will, however, continue to due my part from a conservation point of view and will cheer loudest when we lose our dependance on fossil fuel and convert to greener energy sources sources.

Just in case.

Huge Victory in the U.S. on the War on Terror!

2006-11-27T08:24:00.000-05:00

With Americans flexing their consumer muscles like this, the terrorism can never win.

More than 140 million shoppers hit the stores on Black Friday weekend, spending
an average of $360.15, up 18.9 percent from last year's $302.81.

Take that terrorists ! Just wait until you see the numbers we post on Cyber-Monday

The Eye's Have It

2006-11-12T07:46:00.000-05:00

This recent article in Scientific American on how eye movements are stablized in the brain is potentially Nobel Prize material in my humble opinion. Understanding a process so basic and fundamental that it occurs without our awareness and yet without it, we could not normally function (nor would we have been able to evolve) is truly an extraordinary achievement.

The problem: How does the brain reconcile and stabalize the images received from our eyes. Our eyes constantly dart around about 3-4 times a second in little hops called saccades. Yet we do not perceive this motion. We see a stable, stationary picture presented to us. This stablalizing effect has been in debate for a over a century. Brain researchers have long assumed that the brain must keep track of the impulses that cause these tiny motions, so as to subtract their effect from our visual awareness. Now researchers have identified a circuit in the monkey brain that seems to play this "stabalizing" role.

Ignoring the motion of our eyes allows us to focus on changes in our environment. The alternative would be chaos, says brain researcher Robert Wurtz of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. "It's almost as if you have a movie camera on top of a bronco and it's jumping around," Wurtz says. "If you watched the movie it would make you sick." Researchers believe the brain solves this problem through a process called corollary discharge. Every time the brain sends the eyes a signal to twitch, it sends a copy, or corollary signal, to another location in the brain...

Wurtz and his colleague Marc Sommer, now at the University of Pittsburgh, stumbled onto the presumed corollary discharge pathway while stimulating the brain region that controls eye movements in live monkeys. Sommer noted that a current applied to this area, called the superior colliculus, elicited a delayed response in the frontal cortex, which is associated with attention and decision making, Wurtz recalls. The delay suggested a relay of neurons ending at the frontal cortex.

Researchers had already observed that brain cells in this region seem to anticipate where the eye's center of focus will move to after an impending saccade, making it a reasonable place for corollary discharges to end up.

Other experts find the result convincing. "For a long time we've known that mechanism had to be there, and they've shown how it works," says neurophysiologist Douglas Munoz of Queens University in Ontario. Besides solving this puzzle, adds James Lynch of the University of Mississippi, the group's "imaginative and exceedingly difficult" experiments also mark a new step in the ability to pinpoint the flow of information in the brain. Sommer says future experiments may inactivate more of the thalamus to see if monkeys have a harder time distinguishing their own saccades from changes in their environment.

While this first step toward understanding is great, I do cringe at the following statement made in the article - "brain cells in this region seem to anticipate where the eye's center of focus will move to ...".

The term anticipate used by the researcher seems a bit out of place. He is attempting to personify brain cells with anticipatory response - which is (to put it very nicely) unlikely. Brain cells do not anticipate anything - they process information.

When we interact with our environment the brain processes those interactions. From birth we are subjected to the stimuli inherent to our reality (environment). We receive these stimuli through our five senses. Over time and through repitition, our brains become hard-wired to recognize and subconsciously respond to various aspects of our environment based on past experience. This hard-wiring, or imprinting process in the brain is known as neuroplasticity (think classical or Pavlovian conditioning) .

When I see the color "red" I think of many things. "Red" can mean "apple", or "stop", or "blood". Based on past experience, my brain retains these numerous concepts of "red". When I next encounter a situation involving "red", the brain processes the enviromental context in which "red" is currently occurring, and subconsciously determines the appropriate association (I cut my finger so red = blood. I am driving and see a traffic light so red = stop). All these associations are based on prior interactions and experience of the concept "red" imprinted in the brain.

A better way to describe what is happening when the brain stabalizes our jerky eye motions would be to say the brain creates and retains a "background image" in another location. Through neuroplasticity, we know things far away from us (say mountains or the sky) are stationary and will be in the same place when the next saccade occurs - it is therefore "stable". The brain can now focus on detailing objects with the potential to display motion during the next saccade (a tree on a windy day or clouds passing overhead). The brain would then need only reconcile the portions of a new incoming image that have the potential for perceptable change with that of the stable "background image". Thus negating the need for the brain to anticipate future events.

I think it would be interesting if the researchers looked at another seemingly simple, yet overlooked occurance in nature that may be in direct correlation with their research- why lower level animals are able to walk almost immediately after birth. And why humans take between 9-16 months before they even begin to take those first tentative steps.

I would suggest this occurs because animal brains do not need to process as much information as the human brain does. Their brains are geared solely for survival. Without the distraction of high-level consciousness, the animal brain is able to "focus" more rapidly on survival processes. The faster it can stabalize visual reality, in conjunction with being born with the appropriate musculature, the faster they become ambulatory and un-eaten by predators.

There is no immediacy for humans to begin walking, nor for our bodies to develop quickly. Because of our nuturing process, we are not in any immediate danger at birth nor for a long time afterwards. Our bodies develop slowly. This gives our brain time. Time to "concentrate" on other things. Time to "concentrate" on all the other things that make us uniquely human (speech, face and symbol recognition, high-level consciousness, etc.).

The Most Expensive Ray-Ban's Ever!

2006-11-06T08:41:00.000-05:00

In what has to be one of the most stupid, ridiculous, frivolous wastes of money, a "researcher" named Roger Angel (an Arizona astronomer), has come up with a way to to cool the Earth in an emergency (read because of global warming) . We simply need to deploy a space sunshade. Yup, that's right. Little beach umbrellas to block out a portion of the sun's rays reaching Earth.

He proposes we

launch a constellation of trillions of small free-flying spacecraft a million miles above Earth into an orbit aligned with the sun.

Wonderful.

The spacecraft would form a long, cylindrical cloud with a diameter about half that of Earth, and about 10 times longer. About 10 percent of the sunlight passing through the 60,000-mile length of the cloud, pointing lengthwise between the Earth and the sun, would be diverted away from our planet. The effect would be to uniformly reduce sunlight by about 2 percent over the entire planet, enough to balance the heating of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.

And the cost?

The total mass of all the fliers making up the space sunshade structure would be 20 million tons. At $10,000 a pound.

That comes to about $8,000,000,000,000,000 (That's $8 quadrillion). Which roughly comes out to about $1.6 million per person on Earth (assuming a population in the near future of 5 billion people).

How long would it take to deploy Mr. Angel?

The sunshade could be deployed by a total 20 electromagnetic launchers launching
a stack of (1 million) flyers every 5 minutes for 10 years.

Hate to burst your bubble, but NASA can't even launch a couple of shuttles every year and you're talking about completing over 21 million successful launches (21,024,000 to be exact)! Ass.

I think the greatest discovery researchers have made this century is the discovery that they can use fear to scare up grant money.

Global warming has become big business. Political motivations and scare tactics allow this kind of "research" to continue. Yes, Mr. Angel is receiving government grant money and yes, he is receiving MORE money to further develop this stupid idea.

Here's a thought you moron - take your research grant and make American farms and single-family homes energy self-sufficient. Then figure out a way to retro-fit all farms and homes for under $25,000. With the money you make from that form a PAC and force the auto industry to make zero emmissions cars. Then we won't need your drug-induced-saw-Stars-Wars-124-Times vision of the future. Ass.

"Look At Me! Look At Me!"

2006-11-03T08:29:00.000-05:00

If I had a nickle for every time a scientist discovered a "new" region in the brain the "defines" where this or that happens, my 401k would be maxed out right now.

If all these "regions" were true, the brain's size (by my rigid calculations) would be roughly the size of one of Jupiter's moons (Io perhaps).

The latest region to be "discovered" is the morality center. Of course, this claim is outrageous and the scientist(s) involved are more akin to the insecure, needy person ever-present at parties who draws unwarranted attention to his or herself in a vain attempt to get people to notice them.

Enough already!

The "science" behind the experiment involves the "researchers" imposing their own social judgements on the test subjects when placed in a situation involving the sharing of money.

Subjects were put into anonymous pairs, and one person in each pair was given $20 and asked to share it with the other. They could choose to offer any amount – if the second partner accepted it, they both got to keep their share.

In purely economic terms, the second partner should never reject an offer, even a really low one, such as $1, as they are still $1 better off than if they rejected it. Most people offered half of the money. But in cases where only a very small share was offered, the vast majority of "receivers" spitefully rejected the offer, ensuring that neither partner got paid.
Previous brain imaging studies have revealed that part of the frontal lobes known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or DLPFC, becomes active when people face an unfair offer and have to decide what to do. Researchers had suggested this was because the region somehow suppresses our judgement of fairness.
But now, Ernst Fehr, an economist at the University of Zurich, and colleagues have come to the opposite conclusion – that the region suppresses our natural tendency to act in our own self interest.

They used a burst of magnetic pulses called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) – produced by coils held over the scalp – to temporarily shut off activity in the DLPFC. Now, when faced with the opportunity to spitefully reject a cheeky low cash offer, subjects were actually more likely to take the money.
The researchers found that the DLPFC region's activity on the right side of the brain, but not the left, is vital for people to be able to dish out such punishment.
"The DLPFC is really causal in this decision. Its activity is crucial for overriding self interest," says Fehr. When the region is not working, people still know the offer is unfair, he says, but they do not act to punish the unfairness.

Oh boy.... here it comes ...

"Self interest is one important motive in every human," says Fehr, "but there are also fairness concerns in most people."
"In other words, this is the part of the brain dealing with morality," says Herb Gintis, an economist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, US. "[It] is involved in comparing the costs and benefits of the material in terms of its fairness. It represses
the basic instincts."

You had to do it didn't you Herb? Couldn't control yourself. Had to make the ridiculous claim that you have found the morality center. To me the experiment proves the existance of the "You-Cheap-F***ing-Bastard-Center" in the brain. You are basing your claim on $20 - try giving the people $2 million each and asking them to share it. I bet they all will come to some agreement. Then you can claim you've found the "Generosity Center" in the brain. Ass

Didn't you notice your statement is based on what Ernst Fehr claims? He's an ECONOMIST. Why must you try to assign some physiological process to what is more likely an environmentally created activity. Morality is a learned event. Taught by family, friends, teachers, society, etc... Yes this learned behavior is processed in the brain. But it DOES NOT mean the brain possesses a special region for morality. IT DOES NOT mean we are born with a morality center. It just means that the brain uses neural resources from a particular section of the brain to process what we've learned. It is not inherent in the development of the brain.

Now before you continue along to the next "logical" step for your research... THERE IS NO MORALITY GENE. Ass.

I have an open question for you and all your neuroscientist buddies...

The primary function of kidneys is to remove toxic waste from the blood, the primary function of the lungs is to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide between the bloodstream and the atmosphere.

So riddle me this...

What is the primary function of the brain as an organ?

Anyone?

Carbon Dating

2006-10-17T11:31:00.000-05:00

This lesson was copied from How Stuff Works in an effort to enlighten those that think Carbon-14 dating is some mystical, innaccurate or unreliable (yes I'm talking to you Creationists) process for fiding the age of really old things.

First, where does Carbon-14 come from?

Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.

The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage.

As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.

A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:

t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2

where ln is the natural logarithm,
Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living
tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).

So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:

t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
t = 18,940 years old

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old (other techniques can increase this accuracy to 100,000 years). However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.

The Limitations of Carbon 14 Dating

First, the size of the archaeological sample is important. Larger samples are better, because purification and distillation remove some matter. Although new techniques for working with very small samples have been developed, like accelerator dating, these are very expensive and still somewhat experimental.

Second, great care must be taken in collecting and packing samples to avoid contamination by more recent carbon. For each sample, clean trowels should be used, to avoid cross contamination between samples. The samples should be packaged in chemically neutral materials to avoid picking up new C-14 from the packaging. The packaging should also be airtight to avoid contact with atmospheric C-14. Also, the stratigraphy should be carefully examined to determine that a carbon sample location was not contaminated by carbon from a later or an earlier period.

Third, because the decay rate is logarithmic, radiocarbon dating has significant upper and lower limits. It is not very accurate for fairly recent deposits. In recent deposits so little decay has occurred that the error factor (the standard deviation) may be larger than the date obtained. The practical upper limit is about 50,000 years, because so little C-14 remains after almost 9 half-lives that it may be hard to detect and obtain an accurate reading, regardless of the size of the sample.

Fourth, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere is not constant. Although it was originally thought that there has always been about the same ratio, radiocarbon samples taken and cross dated using other techniques like dendrochronology have shown that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 has varied significantly during the history of the Earth. This variation is due to changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth, and changes in the effectiveness of the Van Allen belts and the upper atmosphere to deflect that bombardment. For example, because of the recent depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere, we can expect there to be more C-14 in the atmosphere today than there was 20-30 years ago. To compensate for this variation, dates obtained from radiocarbon laboratories are now corrected using standard calibration tables developed in the past 15-20 years. When reading archaeological reports, be sure to check if the carbon-14 dates reported have been calibrated or not.

Finally, although radiocarbon dating is the most common and widely used chronometric technique in archaeology today, it is not infallible. In general, single dates should not be trusted. Whenever possible multiple samples should be collected and dated from associated strata. The trend of the samples will provide a ball park estimate of the actual date of deposition. The trade-off between radiocarbon dating and other techniques, like dendrochronology, is that we exchange precision for a wider geographical and temporal range. That is the true benefit of radiocarbon dating, that it can be employed anywhere in the world, and does have a 50,000 year range.

The Ultimate Green Energy

2006-10-17T11:13:00.000-05:00

A new study shows that lowly phytoplankton produce about 63 terawatts of chemical power every year. Compare that with the fact that in 2001, humans collectively consumed about 13.5 terawatts.

All we need to do is harness this energy source and presto -- energy problems solved.

The study also found that

the movements of all of the ocean's marine life — from lowly phytoplankton to
the largest whales — play a crucial role in bringing cold water from the ocean's
depths to the surface. This ocean churning is what powers the global
circulation of warm and cold water and is an important factor in the Earth's
climate.

Lastly the study shows that humans are bad.

Humans might be inadvertently affecting this important ocean "biomixing" through
their decimation of whales and big fish populations.

Another downside, the Wachowski Brothers may need to revamp the script for The Matrix 4.

The Emancipation of Science

2006-10-03T06:36:00.000-05:00

"Let my research go!"

Scientists have long been held hostage by academic journals that use a small group of anonymous experts to secretly review and subsequently accept or deny research for publication - all without having to justify their decisions. But no longer.

Next month, a non-profit called the Public Library of Science will launch PLoS One ... an open-peer-review journal focusing on Science and Medicine.

The idea is simple, charge the author to publish any work they wish. Then make it freely available online for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use (with attribution) any way you wish. Manuscripts in PLoS ONE are posted for the world to dissect after an editor gives them just a cursory look. "If we publish a vast number of papers, some of which are mediocre and some of which are stellar, Nobel Prize-winning work — I will be happy," said Chris Surridge, the PLoS Ones's managing editor.

Bravo! "Wonderblog power -- Activated". Open-peer review and watchdog sites have already had a huge impact on politics and news reporting in general, now we will see what it can do for science once politics and pettiness are removed from the equation. The idea of direct-to-public publication was helped along by creepy Russian mathematician (and Uni-bomber wannabe) Grigori Perelman. In 2002 he bypassed the peer-review system and posted a landmark paper to the online repository arXiv. Perelman later won the Fields Medal (which he later declined) for his contribution to the proof of the Poincare conjecture.

What's that sound off in the distance?

That's the sound of an Ivory Tower coming down.
(Yes, ivory towers sound different than your average tower when demolished)

"Excuse Me... Its Just My Climate Shifting"

2006-10-01T09:46:00.000-05:00

New evidence that ocean surface temperatures varied as much as 6 degrees Celsius (about 11 degrees Fahrenheit) during the Aptian Epoch of the Cretaceous Period 120 million years ago.

The finding is relevant to the ongoing climate change discussion, IUB geologist Simon Brassell says, because it portrays an ancient Earth whose temperatures shifted erratically due to changes in carbon cycling and did so without human input.

Oddly enough, this story didn't make the headlines anywhere. This one did though.

Looks like dinosaurs should have switched to alternative sources for their energy comsumption needs. Well maybe they did. They turned into birds didn't they?

Scientific Art

2006-09-29T09:41:00.000-05:00

Science and the National Science Foundation announced the winners of the fourth annual Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge.

The winning illustration displays five well-known mathematical surfaces that exist only in the abstract. It was created using a 3D-rendering program.

Beauty and The Brain

2006-09-28T06:57:00.000-05:00

Apparently beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind, or so says Piotr Winkielman, of the University of California, San Diego.

What a grand statement. And how did the esteemed doctor arrive at the dramatic conclusions? Random-dot and geometric pattern experiments. Wonderful. While his conclusions seem reasonable, the "experiment" relies heavily on the participant's subjective rating of "attractiveness" of an object - which could easily be skewed based on the images shown. "As predicted," the researchers write, "participants categorized patterns more quickly and judged them as more attractive when the patterns were closer to their respective prototypes."

Jump three suppositions ahead and you get "This ...," he said, "accounts for cultural differences in beauty -- and historical differences in beauty as well -- because beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind."

Huh?

I think the only conclusion that can be reached from this social experiment is that the brain finds recognizable patterns more appealing (I don't think I've ever used the word "attractive" to describe random dot patterns). To leap ahead and make irresponsible assertations without direct proof is asinine.

For example - we've all heard of or experienced the "fact" that many men marry a woman that either looks like, or displays qualities possessed by the man's mother. Couple that with the fact that most men are exposed to their mothers (sorry, no orphans in this study) more than anyone else in their lives - remember the doctor said "beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind".

The conclusion?

Freud was right! Most men have an oedipal complex.

Me thinks the good doctor is trying to validate Freudian analysis (because he studied it in PSY102) because he is trying desperately to find the reason why he got a boner in the shower once while thinking about his mother.

"Mommy, I wanna grow up and be a Cranio-maxillofacial surgeon"

2006-09-28T06:50:00.001-05:00

Is it just me, or are doctors and scientists getting a little too specialized ?

Maybe some conscilience between disciplines would be he'pful.

Enough Already !

2006-09-25T09:16:00.000-05:00

Injured dolphin may get prosthetic tail

A team of more than 150 volunteers and veterinarians spent months nursing Winter (the dolphin's "name") back to health.

Estimated cost for the prosthetic tail? Well over $100,000.

Morons.

Volunteer to help people or save the planet. Give the money to feed some hungry kids. Better yet, feed the dolphin to the hungry kids and give me the money.

Why is Bob Smiling?

2006-09-25T06:54:00.000-05:00

'Natural Male Enhancement' Company Owner Indicted on Fraud.

CINCINNATI — The maker of dietary supplements that claim to improve everything from sexuality to memory defrauded thousands of customers and banks of at least $100 million, federal authorities say.

Warshak, who has 107 counts against him, denies the accusations and will continue to operate the company, his attorney said Thursday.

The company, which recently said it has 5 million customers worldwide, is known for its "Smiling Bob" ads that depict a man whose life gets better after he uses the company's Enzyte for "natural male enhancement." The company markets nationally a variety of other products claiming to help everything from night vision to memory to female libido.

Surprise surprise surprise - penis enhancement drugs (PEDs) don't work (unfortunately is not a muscle so daily exercise doesn't work either). There always seems to be a large group of people always willing - if not eager - to set aside reason on the hope of some 'miracle cure' result. Mix in some good (and admittedly funny) advertising and watch the profits grow. One needs only to look at the multi-billion $$ vitamin and dietary supplement industry to see this.

Unfortunately this company didn't just sell PEDs, he also sold other 'drugs' claiming to reduce the risks of prostate cancer and heart attack (oddly the same 'drug' does both). Obviously dangerous to someone that may gain a false sense of security about their health and forego more traditional means of staying healthy- like diet and exercise. And this company is only one of many. These types of products have been around forever - we called them snake oil last century.

We seem to have developed an overconfidence in our collective medical abilities - constantly believing in "cure-all" claims or the "just take this pill and you'll be alright" mode of thinking. Our doctors don't help by over-prescribing antibiotics and painkillers everytime a child sniffles or a back aches, or by labeling every high-strung person with Attention Deficit Disorder - maybe its just Restless Leg Syndrome - and then proceeding to alter their brain chemistry with drugs like Strattera, etc. There must be some anthropological root for this behavior, this meme.

Granted there are many significantly helpful drugs out there (remember good ole aspirin?), but people need to realize there is no "cure all" for every malady. I find it particularly appalling that doctors wantonly prescribe brain-chemistry altering drugs and yet have little or no knowledge as to what these things really do to a human brain. To me it is the equivalent to "leeching" a patient to get rid of "bad blood". (When I need to get some major plumbing done to my house, I usually call an experienced plumber - someone with lots of experience and knowledge - to do the job. They don't need to have a degree in fluid mechanics, but they certainly need to know what the wrench is for).

How can I make the claim that doctors don't know anything about the brain? They are our most educated group of individuals in our society, right? Well ask one - or many - how the brain works. You'll receive a different answer from each doctor. Sure they can vaguely name off some brain regions and what they "do", but no one has any real idea how neural processes in the brain actually produce the effects we experience. They can't even agree on a standardized definition of these neural processes. They can, however, tell you what the direct effect of taking their drugs is - after all, they have clinical studies to prove it. Thanks, but no thanks. They don't know nearly enough yet for me to have any confidence in their pharmaceutical recommendations.

There are some great (and not-so-great) theories on the brain and the mind (sorry for the horrible segway). Over the coming months I will share some of them as well as my own theories on the matter - which is so deceptively simple, it may just be true.

Li'l help here

2006-09-21T07:37:00.000-05:00

A recent article on CNN claims "Last cavemen were survivors"

I know this is a semantic issue, but please please PLEASE try to make sense with your headlines (at least the ones not on the Entertainment pages) .

The last cavemen died.

They were not survivors.

Otherwise the headline would read "Last Homo sapiens were survivors"

Space shuttle Atlantis lands safely in Florida!

2006-09-21T07:26:00.000-05:00

Congrats crew of Atlantis!

Am I the only person that still thinks going into and returning from space is still amazing?

In other Shuttle news, looks like NASA is sending a Nigerian teenager onto a zero-gravity flight. Kudos to NASA ! But if the money you spend on this were instead spent on a school for the kids in her village, wouldn't that be better in the long run? The PR just isn't as sexy I guess.

And why haven't I seen any offers to send up my kid? Guess I'll have to move to a third world country and apply.

MIT announces new energy initiative

2006-09-21T07:13:00.000-05:00

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Sept. 20 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are starting a project to better understand how to best tackle the world's looming energy crisis.

All I can say is... Its about time. Apparantly the energy crisis is a new topic, otherwise MIT may have wanted to look at it, I don't know, back in the 70's. But, better late than never.

Lets hope the energy solutions the eggheads come up with can be used outside the annual MIT robot competition .

NIH: Scientists Escape Ethics Punishment

2006-09-13T12:17:00.000-05:00

Found this nugget tucked away on Foxnews.com.

Most of the federal scientists who improperly accepted personal money from drug or biotechnology companies walked away with reprimands or were allowed to retire unscathed.

NIH workers are goverment workers (I am friends with several) and cannot recieve money from private firms. They also recieve goverment salaries, which I am sure, is no where near the rate-of-pay they would receive in the private sector.

Its a double-edged sword. Without impartial government research, which tends to be more purely scientific in nature (i.e. science for the sake of science) , all of us suffer. Much of the research done at NIH may not have any immediate intrinsic value (e.g. drug sales) but it is still vital and necessary research.

While private research is equally important, private firms are in it for results : results = money (nothing wrong with a bit of capitalism). But the lure of big money from private or commercial firms surely takes its toll on the scientists and their desire to increase their standard of living.

But it still makes me wonder about the impartiality of the science - especially when BIG money is on the line.

Wearing A Helmet Puts Cyclists At Risk

2006-09-13T08:05:00.000-05:00

We'll start off with an easy one today to illustrate the total disregard for the scientific method that is so prevalent in today's "science".

This one comes from ScienceDaily . Apparently we shouldn't wear our helmets when riding a bicycle - nevermind the $50 ticket - it may be hazardous to our health! How, do you ask, was this conclusion drawn? Let's take a look at the "research"...

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist (traffic psychologist ??) from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without.

And the conclusions drawn from this rigorous experimentation?

"This study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.

It shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance.

By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road... as well as the margin for error in their judgments."

What?? Supposition + Supposition + Supposition = Fact ??

Dr Walker suggests the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is down to how cyclists are perceived as a group. “We know from research that many drivers see cyclists as a separate subculture, to which they don’t belong.”

Dr. Walker's degree in a fringe, pseudo field come into play...

“As a result they hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists, often judging all riders by the yardstick of the lycra-clad street-warrior.

“This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without.

“The idea that helmeted cyclists are more experienced and less likely to do something unexpected would explain why drivers leave less space when passing.

“In reality, there is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without.

He suggests communication is the answer...

“The best answer is for different types of road user to understand each other better. Most adult cyclists know what it is like to drive a car, but relatively few motorists ride bicycles in traffic, and so don’t know the issues cyclists face.

“There should definitely be more information on the needs of other road users when people learn to drive, and practical experience would be even better.

“When people try cycling, they nearly always say it changes the way they treat other road users when they get back in their cars.”

Yet even more conclusions can be drawn...

The study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars. The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer. However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars.

Previously reported research from the project showed that drivers of white vans overtake cyclists an average 10 centimetres (4 inches) closer than car drivers.

Leading to yet another "experiment"...

To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist. Whilst wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) more space when passing.

Maybe they just thought is was a strange guy in a wig... Maybe the drivers wanted to avoid explaining an accident with a transvestite hooker...

In future research, Dr Walker hopes to discover whether this was because female riders are seen as less predictable than male riders, or because women are not seen riding bicycles as often as men on the UK’s roads.

Even to me that seems a bit chauvinistic...

It seems Dr. Walker is more interested in job security than science. He has more "experiments" planned and will no doubt author the government pamphlets to communicate to car drivers the need to be mindful of the psychology of a bicyclist.

The Doctor claims drivers not only behave differently around bicyclists, but differently to bicyclists wearing helmets and those without. Where does this "hard data" come from. Thin air. Even in a court of law a witness cannot testify to what someone was thinking. I would hope scientific research is a bit more rigorous than our justice system in determining facts.

If we look at the scientific method we see it was not followed - he must have the "Cliff Notes" version. I won't get into all the details of the scientific method but the highlights are Observation, Description, Prediction. Control, and Falsifiability (or the elimination of plausible alternatives). Did the Doctor monitor the driving habits of people in the same location when no bicyclist was around? Or if a pedestrian was around?

What the good Doctor did was a Field Experiment - which are notoriously subjective and in the field of social sciences, nearly impossible to corroberate. There was no control in this experiment, and too many variables were involved. It is therefore a quasi-experiment and not subject to empirical methodology. The conclusions drawn from such quasi-experiments cannot be verified and are totally subjective, effectively rendering them useless.

Let's see some more science in your method doctor before you publish such an outlandish claim. And ScienceDaily - shame on you for putting this on your site.

Doctor Walker's research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention which is available to you at the low annual rate of $1,485.26.

Altar of Stone

2006-09-12T10:20:00.000-05:00

Dark matter, human consciousness, the human brain, global warming, religion, evolution and creationism. What do these topics have in common? All have a prescribed set of current theories or beliefs. All are derived from insufficient data - they are incomplete. Many are lacking any empirical data at all while some are just widely held beliefs, myths and superstitions.

We have been told ad nauseum that these topics are "theories" or "laws" or "truths". These assertations have become memes and are now unquestioned. They are also inaccurate. A few definitions are in order to clarify the scientific terminology.

Idea - any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.

Concept - an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

Belief - confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Scientific Theory - a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. A theory is Internally consistent and compatible with the evidence, firmly grounded in and based upon evidence, tested against a wide range of phenomena, and demonstrably effective in problem-solving

Scientific Hypothesis - an idea or proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable, which means that they are worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.

Scientific Law - a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances.

Some of the afformentioned "theories" are more complete than others, while some are non-scientific in nature, the end result in the media is the same - exaggerated claims as to the validity of the "theories". The media continually spouts headline after headline claiming some miraculous scientific "discovery" has been "verified" thus "proving" Theory A to be "correct". Many of these claims are derived from a "house-of-cards" mindset in which the deductions derived from the new data come from other equally precarious deductions - one stacked on top of the other requiring only a modest breeze of truth to topple them. Sometimes the new "discoveries" are derived from flimsy, even shoddy, experimental data that has little, if any, relation to the topic at hand. Some "discoveries" are biased by the scientists or the scientific publishers themselves, whether it be for capitalistic, political, or theological reasons. Whatever the reason, a lot of misleading (if not totally false) information is being spoon fed to the masses (read "to me and you"), while at the same time other, more legitimate "discoveries" are overlooked or ignored out of fear or ignorance.

Equally disturbing are religious claims. I find it difficult to accept any current prescribed doctrine religious dogma although I consider myself a spiritual person. I have my own beliefs on the afterlife and a supreme being. Books written thousands of years ago, by men more intellectually primitive than now, hold no sway over my current thinking.

To that point, many mathematical and scientific books were also written over the centuries. Most, if not all have been updated, ammended, or replaced with better, more accurate information and ideas as our collective knowledge grows. It seems a bit presumptuous and arrogant to think that ancient man got religion 100% correct the very first time it was conceived. Sadly, I do not have that much faith in my ancestors or their beliefs.

Hence the creation of Altar of Stone - A forum to openly discuss new ideas and current scientific, religious, philosophical theories and claims. Hopefully without the venom from people who are either too afraid or are just unable to think beyond themselves.