Anecdotal Schmanecdotal: Why We Need Less "Folk," and More Remedy

It would not be wise to rely on remedies that have only anecdotal evidence to support the claims made about them. Anecdotal evidence does have a role to play as a launching point for deeper inquiry. However, such evidence is subject to a host of logical fallacies that undermine its usefulness as a guide, especially for something as vital as medicine. Although there are limtations to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval processes for medicines and drugs, the benefits of requiring clinical trials and quantifiable evidence to gain institutional legitimacy far outweigh any weaknesses inherent in the governing body that reviews such claims.

Anecdotal (sometimes called “testimonial”) evidence is unreliable for a multitude of reasons. Professor of Philosophy Robert T. Carroll, Ph.D., gives a long list of these reasons on the online counterpart to his 2003 book, The Skeptic’s Dictionary:

Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy.

Personal experience may seem like the most reliable of all tests, but people are more easily fooled than they would like to believe – ask any magician. More rigorous investigation has shown again and again that many so-called “folk remedies,” some of which have been in use for centuries, simply are not efficacious beyond the psychological phenomenon known as the placebo effect.

Wheatgrass juice is a case in point. According to the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, people today drink this concoction as a curative for a wide range of ailments, including cancer, preventing gray hair, kidney stones, bronchitis, arthritis, and to rid the body of “toxins” (a catch-all term that means nothing from a medical standpoint).

In an article for the August 2008 issue of Scientific American magazine titled “Wheatgrass Juice and Folk Medicine,” Dr. Michael Shermer, Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University and founder of Skeptic magazine, traced the modern promotion of wheatgrass to a holistic health practitioner named Ann Wigmore, who began campaigning for the plant in the 1940’s after being inspired by a biblical tale of King Nebuchadnezzer, as well as the tendency of dogs and cats to eat grass to aid in digestion.

According to Shermer, Wigmore posited that wheatgrass had such palliative powers because of the enzymes and chlorophylls contained therein. Wigmore, however, completely misunderstood how digestion works. To explain why it makes no sense, Shermer quoted William T. Jarvis, retired professor of public health at the Loma Linda University School of Medicine and founder of the National Council against Health Fraud:

“Enzymes are complex protein molecules produced by living organisms exclusively for their own use in promoting chemical reactions. Orally ingested enzymes are digested in the stomach and have no enzymatic activity in the eater.” Jarvis adds, “The fact that grass-eating animals are not spared from cancer, despite their large intake of fresh chlorophyll, seems to have been lost on Wigmore. In fact, chlorophyll cannot ‘detoxify the body’ because it is not absorbed.”

Ann Wigmore. Courtesy of healthbanquet.com

Despite the obvious inanity of Wigmore’s reasoning, there continues to be a vibrant market for wheatgrass, perpetuated entirely by personal testimony and careful marketing.

So what is the big deal? If products like wheatgrass juice - or traditional therapies like acupuncture or homeopathy - make someone feel better, why should it matter if there are no well-designed clinical trials to support any significant effects? Why does an organization like the FDA refuse to let these remedies join the ranks of the approved? What is the harm?

The harm comes in three forms. The first is that anecdotal claims often rest on unstated (and sometimes stated) premises that fly in the face of basic scientific principles. For instance: 160 years ago, Samuel Hahnemann, the father of homeopathy, based his methodology on the concept that water has “memory,” and that diluting a substance renders it more powerful. The most “effective” homeopathic remedies are usually so diluted that they do not contain a single molecule of the original substance. People who accept these ideas not only become misinformed about medicine – they must reject most of physics, chemistry, and biology to maintain their belief. The diametric opposition to well-established facts becomes a huge barrier to understanding many other aspects of science, and undermines critical thinking abilities altogether.

The second harm is borne by those with ills that might be treated by standard methods of care, but whose conditions are worsened because they choose alternatives that have only anecdotal backing. The conflation of correlation with causation is a common culprit in such anecdotal misinterpretations. If, for instance, person X receives homeopathic treatment for prostate cancer and discovers that the cancer has gone into remission, he may decide that the treatment caused the remission. In doing so, he ignores the fact that cancers sometimes spontaneously subside, that there may be other factors that contributed to his newfound health (exercise, other treatments, and so on), and – most importantly – that persons A to W did not obtain the same results. While X champions his homeopathic cure, these other folk never get the chance to tell the stories of their failures, because they are dead.

This is more than just a hypothetical scenario. Homeopaths have claimed that their remedies can effectively treat diseases like malaria, gonorrhea, and even AIDS. One such practitioner named Peter Chappell peddles his cures (which are proprietary, because, he says, they are “ahead of the science and because the terms are not there, to explain it within science”) to the sick and desperate in Africa. Chappell does some fancy footwork to explain his method’s ineffectiveness in the developed world. In a 2007 interview for the online homeopathic forum Hpathy, he said the following of “White people and Europeans”:

“White people with AIDS frequently don't respond so well to PC AIDS [the name of his remedy] because they have a lot of other issues running at the same time, which are more important often than the AIDS, in that they depress the immune system far more than the virus.”

Peter Chappell. Courtesy of minimum.com

Chappell seems to forget that Africans suffer from much higher rates of most diseases than anyone else on the planet, that they have poorer nutritional health, that they frequently face stressful and unsanitary living conditions, and that some African countries have average life spans that are about half as long as those enjoyed in rich countries. Yet white people (whatever that means), we are told, have more issues depressing their immune systems. Is it at all more likely that “white people” would require clinical trials, while desperate African nations are more willing to accept the word of anyone who promises hope for their ailing populations? As it stands, it is impossible to tell, since Chappell has no statistical evidence to back his claims.

Most people who rely on anecdotally supported treatments are not on the verge of death, of course, and many folk remedies are applied only in relatively benign situations, such as the occasional scrape or cold. Yet even in these cases, the consumer of folk remedies faces a third potential harm: a loss of money and time. According to a December 2009 article in the Nutrition Business Journal, which describes itself as “a research, publishing and consulting company serving the nutrition, natural products and alternative health care industries,” U.S. consumer sales for the subcategory of supplements that includes homeopathic remedies, fish/animal oils, probiotics, and a few other supplements grew by $270 million in 2008 to $4.5 billion. This, according to the article, was a “less than stellar” year for the products. Such huge investments by the American public divert funding from therapies and treatments that have more than testimony to vouch for them.

Anecdotal evidence is clearly not enough to make a folk remedy worth relying upon. This does not mean that folk remedies carry absolutely no weight, however. Just as they steer people in wrong directions, they have been the source of a great number of legitimate discoveries. One famous example of just such a remedy involved British sailors in the 1700’s who suffered from scurvy, a condition caused by Vitamin C deficiency. Dr. James Lind conducted one the earliest clinical trials in history, and discovered that sailors who were given a regimen of two oranges and one lime a day improved. In time, lime juice was substituted for lemon juice, and the sailors who imbibed this everyday substance were dubbed “limeys.”

James Lind. Courtesy of jameslindlibrary.org

More recently, certain fields that were once the realm of the humanities have begun to standardize their practices by taking more evidence-based approaches to research. This has been especially true of clinical psychology, which has coupled itself with neurobiology and other “hard sciences” as well as evaluating its internal methods to establish greater standards of efficacy and accountability. Discussions of creating a new accreditation system have spawned fresh debates over just how much the field can benefit. In a December 4 segment on National Public Radio’s Science Friday titled “Can Science Make Psychotherapy More Effective,” Dianne Chambless, the Merriam term professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, related how incorporating new evidence into her practice had improved outcomes in people with obsessive compulsive disorder:

…back in the 60s, early 70s, we were treating obsessive compulsive disorder with relaxation approaches because that seemed to help other anxiety disorders. And we weren't really getting anywhere.

And then in England people developed a new treatment called exposure and ritual prevention. And we read about this. I was in training. And we started with great excitement to try this new treatment, and it worked. So we weren't different as therapists. We were still the same caring people that we used to be. But we tried a new treatment that was based on the science of fear and learning. It worked. It meant some people who were crippled by their problems became functional people, and around 70 percent of them got very much better.

Chambless went on to say that despite the obvious difference between the two approaches, surveys of clinical psychologists have shown that more continue to use the defunct relaxation techniques. Both types of therapy became widespread because of anecdotal evidence. Further studies showed one to be more effective than the other. This, she believes, is just one reason to bring psychotherapeutic methods further beyond the realm of anecdote.

The problems with relying on remedies that are not supported by scientific evidence are multitudinous. This makes the need for an approval process for medicines obvious. However, no system is perfect. As the primary body for determining the safety and efficacy of medicines in the U.S., the FDA bears the weight of criticisms, some of which are legitimate, from all sides. As with any governmental organization, politics and money play a role in its function. Moreover, the very nature of the clinical trial may impede many remedies from being approved – or even reviewed.

The Mayo Clinic’s website offers a few reasons why some alternative medicines never make the cut for approval by the FDA. Among other things, it points out that “large, carefully controlled medical studies are costly. Trials for conventional medications or procedures are often directly or indirectly funded by the government or drug companies, giving conventional treatments more resources to do studies.”

When there are no lucrative patents to be gained, for-profit companies are less likely to pursue research into folk medicines. This lack of funding has historically kept many potentially beneficial remedies from being investigated.

As the alternative medicine industry has gained ground in popular culture, however, the government has taken an active role in funding studies through the branch of the National Institutes of Health called the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). In 2008, approximately $300 million (around 1%) of funding for medical research went to this institution.

Graphic Courtesy of nccam.nih.gov

Clinical trials take years to conduct, and this poses another barrier to alternative modalities. Many of them make so many claims that investigating all of them would take decades. Some of these claims are so outrageous that scientists do not deem them worthy of investigation whatsoever, but others simply have not been subjected to enough research for the FDA to make reasonable decisions about them.

When to stop research is another open question. If a substance or therapy has shown no effect for a given ailment in hundreds of well-designed trials, does one pursue research into another, slightly different, use? How much time, money, and effort does any modality deserve? The decision to end a line of inquiry is partially dependent on resource prioritization. When the results of research keep coming back negative, other pursuits must eventually take precedence.

Although it may take a long time for a treatment to gain acceptance under the current regulatory regime, the complaints of some practitioners whose methods do not hold up even after being scrutinized are rarely justified. They have careers – and often personal convictions – at stake, and may resort to special pleading to defend their failures. This is exactly what happened in 2005, when the medical journal The Lancet published the most thorough analysis of homeopathy ever conducted, synthesizing data from over 100 trials related to numerous illnesses and found that homeopathy had no better results than placebo. Not only did homeopaths unanimously decry the research; at least one group went as far as to say that placebo-controlled randomized trials were not a proper method for testing their wares:

Two primary concerns for homeopaths are that the treatment is holistic and that it is individualised. Treatment cannot be standardised and patient response is unpredictable. RCTs are looking for specific effects whereas homeopathy is attempting to produce general health effects as well as specific effects – homeopathy treats the whole person….Patients may choose homeopathy or acupuncture or other forms of complementary and alternative medicine because of preferences and perhaps even the potential for responding. Randomized controlled trials do not necessarily recruit such patients – they take patients with a conventional diagnosis, but do not screen for patients who typically may gravitate to homeopathy or other types of complementary and alternative medicine.

In other words, the only proof that these homeopaths can accept is anecdotal – and then, only if it confirms their beliefs. And that is exactly why bodies like the FDA must continue to exist – to divide the purely anecdotal from the thoroughly researched. At its best, that fallible but invaluable service is all we can – or should - expect from it.

References:

1. Carroll, Robert T. “Anecdotal (testimonial) evidence.” The Skepdic’s Dictionary. 1994-2009. 1 Dec. 2009http://www.skeptic.com/testimon.html

2. “Wheatgrass.” Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. 1995-2009. Therapeutic Research Faculty. 1 Dec. 2009 http://www.naturaldatabase.com/(S(bvtcrabgv0exbxmhw4kbgyar))/nd/Search.aspx?cs=&s=ND&pt=100&id=1073&fs=ND&searchid=18119729

3. Shermer, Michael. “Wheatgrass Juice and Folk Medicine.” Scientific American Magazine. August 2008. 1 Dec. 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results

4. ibid.

5. Baum, Michael. “Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy?” The American Journal of Medicine. Volume 122, Issue 11, Pages 973-974. November 2009. Dec. 2, 2009. <http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934309005336/fulltext>

6. Alan V. Schmukler. “Interviews: Peter Chappell.” Hpathy e-zine. August 2007. Dec. 1, 2009. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:RHl2oBsaqqwJ:www.hpathy.com/interviews/peterchappell.asp+PC-remedies+aids&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

7. “About Us.” Nutrition Business Journal. 2009. Dec. 5, 2009. http://nutritionbusinessjournal.com/aboutus/

8. “Supplements Stand Out As 2008 Sales Bright Spot for U.S. Nutrition Industry.” Nutrition Business Journal. Dec. 4, 2009. Dec. 5, 2009. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:6Z11VcfRn2QJ:subscribers.nutritionbusinessjournal.com/supplements/0601-supplements-bright-spot/+homeopathic+industry+profits+2008&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

9. Corte, Corinne. “Why are English Sailors Called Limeys?” Ask a Biologist. Arizona State University. Dec. 1, 2009. http://askabiologist.asu.edu/research/scurvy/index.html

10. “Can Science Make Psychotherapy More Effective?” Science Friday. NPR. Dec. 4, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=121092295

11. “Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What is it?” Mayo Clinic. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Oct. 24, 2009. Dec. 2, 2009. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alternative-medicine/PN00001/NSECTIONGROUP=2

12. Noble, Rob. “Alternative, complementary and traditional medicine and HIV.” AVERT. Nov. 12, 2009. Dec. 2, 2009. http://www.avert.org/alternative-medicine-hiv.htm

13. Shang A. et al. “Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy.” Lancet. Aug. 27, 2005. 366(9487). Dec. 2, 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589

14. Chatfield K. and Relton C. “Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? - A full critique of the article by Shang et al.” European Central Council of Homeopaths. Sep. 2005. Dec. 2, 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589

Tips on Arguing: Confirmation Bias

Inquiry:

Whether or not you’ve ever lived with someone of the opposite sex, you’re probably familiar with the following scenario:

Maria storms into the living room, where she finds Norm, her husband, watching TV.

“You forgot to put the toilet seat down,” she accuses, her eyes narrowing to narrow slits. “I almost drowned myself.”

Norm rolls his eyes in response. “C’mon,” he says, waving her away with his hand. “So I forgot this once.”

“You always forget!” Maria counters.

“I do not,” he replies. “I remembered every other time this week.”

In the above situation, both Maria and Norm suffer from confirmation bias: the tendency to interpret data based on the parts of it that fit most favorably with our beliefs. Maria sees when Norm leaves the seat up, but she can’t tell when he puts it down. Her memory is filled with her husband’s mistakes. By the same token, Norm recalls all of the times that he thought to put the toilet seat down. But he can’t possibly remember the times when he forgot to put the seat down; if he had, he wouldn’t have left it up. Norm’s memory is filled with examples of his own successes.

According to the Skeptic’s Dictionary, a book and online reference by writer and retired professor of philosophy Robert T. Carroll, Ph.D., confirmation bias is an effect of human psychology. The mind has an easier time building upon preconceived notions than tearing them down. “The tendency to give more attention and weight to the positive and the confirmatory has been shown to influence memory,” he says. “When digging into our memories for data relevant to a position, we are more likely to recall data that confirms the position.”

Although putting the toilet seat down might not be a huge deal, the design and interpretation of scientific experiments is utterly dependent on evading the threat of confirmation bias to the greatest extent possible. One way that researchers handle the problem is by introducing randomized samples into their tests. This keeps them from unwittingly selecting a group of people with a shared characteristic. Another method is by double-blinding a trial; neither the subjects nor the researchers know whether a person belongs to the control group or the experimental group.

Even after an experiment is finished, groups of outside scientists will peer-review the report of what happened. This process helps to ensure that most biases get caught. Not even science, however, can completely escape confirmation bias. That’s why no single study is ever absolute – it must be repeated over and over by others before it can be accepted.Although no one can ever completely eliminate bias, you can mitigate it simply by considering the reasons a person might have for maintaining the opposite viewpoint. It requires more work then you’d think, but the results are worthwhile: your own arguments become more robust, and your mind becomes more open.

Kudzu

Journey:

In the autumn of 2008, my now-wife and I were renting the second floor of a two-story house. The downstairs had not been rented in months, and in an effort to attract tenants, the landlord had placed several potted flowers on the front stoop during the summer.

As the flowers died, our landlord periodically replaced them with fresh specimens. Some of the older ones, apparently no longer of any aesthetic value, were left to languish in the brush along the side of the house. Most of the plants wilted quickly, but at least one persevered despite the drop in daylight.

On a particularly blustery day, my wife discovered a toppled flower poking out near the bottom of a receding bush, its precious soil spilt and its receptacle cracked. She wouldn’t bear to let it fall prey to neglect, so she collected the remains and brought it upstairs.

When first I saw the thing, it was unrecognizable; a single translucent green stalk, tenuously holding on to three or four leaves and devoid of fruit or flower. As far as we could tell, it might already be dead. We stuck it on the bedside table, in front of a window, with little hope.

The flower took to its new indoor environment with gusto. A week after rescuing it, there were new shoots popping out of the cragged stem. Soon, small flowers ranging from pink to violet with white centers sprouted all over. It appeared that the plant would survive.

We still didn’t know exactly what species the flower was. We were unsure what its life-span might be, how large it could potentially grow, how much light and water it might require. With our other plants, we knew what to expect. We had directions at our disposal to guide our interactions. But in this case, we were forced to learn the flower’s needs and personality through trial and error.

As the plant grew, its demands for water and light increased significantly. If one of us forgot to water it for a single day, the petals would loosen and fall, and the leaves would almost immediately drain of their rigidity. The entire plant would droop rather morbidly. Within an hour or two of watering, it would revert back to its former virility.

By the spring of 2009, the plant had outgrown its pot and our bedside. We gave it a much larger pot of dirt, and moved it in front of the kitchen window.

At times, the plant would inexplicably shed most of its foliage. This event did not seem to follow a particular seasonal pattern. The first time we witnessed it, we suspected that the plant had lived its course. But a few days later that theory was put to rest by the appearance of new buds.

Eventually, the plant got so large that it took over the windowsill. Spices and other small plants that shared the sunlight were choked out by the spindly tentacles of the plant. Some arms had snuck into crevices and snaked in front of the other plants, robbing them of photosynthetic opportunities. Our counter began to resemble the set from Little Shop of Horrors.

We finally could stand no more. The kudzu has been removed from the kitchen and given its own spot in the living room, where most of our monster-sized plants end up. There’s no telling yet whether it will find the new habitué suitable. That may not be such a terrible problem, though – unless it stops expanding, we’re going to need another pot to contain it pretty soon.

And who knows where it will end? Knowing what I now know about the plant’s intentions, I won’t be surprised if I wake up one day to find myself trapped beneath a mesh of leaves and cute pink flowers.

The Creature.

Human Responsibility Versus the Darwinian Struggle Between All Species

The emphasis on the struggle for existence between species supposedly posited by Darwin’s theories regarding evolution is the result of an oversimplification of his ideas, and fails to take into account the scientific revisions that have taken place over the 150 years since he first wrote On the Origin of Species. This generalization is based on a non-contextualized reading and perversion of his works, a lack of integration in the common understanding of newer scientific knowledge about how biology and ecosystems interact with survival, and an ignorance of man’s deep dependence on other living beings for his own existence. A closer look reveals that man can in no way afford to ignore the status of other species.

The phrase most often used to defend the notion that Darwin suggested that man may act with impunity towards other creatures is “survival of the fittest.” This concept, which is often inaccurately attributed to Darwin, was in fact first coined by the British polymath Herbert Spencer in his 1864 book, Principles of Biology. Spencer used the term as a way to compare his theories on economics with Darwin’s idea of “natural selection.” Spencer’s own definition for survival of the fittest was as “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” (Principles of Biology,1864, vol. 1, p. 444)

Although he later adopted survival of the fittest as a synoym for natural selection in the fifth edition of his seminal book, Darwin described the principle in a more nuanced, layered manner:

“Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring.” (On the origin of species...London: John Murray. 1859 [1st edition] p. 61)

Darwin prefaced his discussion on the struggle for existence by explaining that he used the term “in a large and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny.” (p. 62) He followed this with a number of examples to illustrate how checks on population work, and often pointed out that a given species’ level of success was usually entirely dependent on another species:

“I have, also, reason to believe that humble-bees are indispensable to the fertilisation of the heartsease (Viola tricolor), for other bees do not visit this flower. From experiments which I have tried, I have found that the visits of bees, if not indispensable, are at least highly beneficial to the fertilisation of our clovers; but humble-bees alone visit the common red clover (Trifolium pratense), as other bees cannot reach the nectar. Hence I have very little doubt, that if the whole genus of humble-bees became extinct or very rare in England, the heartsease and red clover would become very rare, or wholly disappear.” (p. 73-74)

By drawing connections between whole chains of species and noting the complex relational webs between them, Darwin contributed to our early understanding of what we today call ecosystems. Indeed, without having a word for the ecological niche, he nevertheless set forth a surprisingly sophisticated depiction of it, even highlighting it as the flashpoint of competition:

“As species of the same genus have usually…some similarity in habits and constitution, and always in structure, the struggle will generally be more severe between species of the same genus…than between species of distinct genera.” (p. 76)

As if all of these caveats to the misappropriated notion of unfettered competition between all species weren’t enough, Darwin explicitly said at the end of the third chapter of his book that, in the course of trying to suss out the most advantageous adaptations for success, it would be nearly impossible to take into full account all of the interrelationships involved. “It will convince us of our ignorance,” he noted, “on the mutual relations of all organic beings; a conviction as necessary, as it seems to be difficult to acquire.” (p. 72)

The common misapprehension that leads to arguments that place Darwin at the head of an anthropomorphic, narcissistic worldview is one that contorts the observations of science into moral decrees. Although science can and should be used to inform our conceptions of the world, it is a mistake to assume that scientific theories are meant to determine moral values. By definition, science is provisional; inferring anything greater than the relatively narrow principles discovered by it does a disservice to its cause, and poses a danger for the ideologue, who is less apt or able to refine and revise his grandiloquent philosophies once they are erected.

This becomes apparent when we begin to consider how evolution and concomitant theories have changed over the years. Darwin, of course, did not foresee all of the implications of his own work. He was not a conservationist; during his famous journey to the Galapagos Islands, he collected many specimens of rare flora and fauna. He was firmly rooted in 19th century natural philosophy, conducting dissections and experiments on creatures without the slightest fear that he would disrupt the ecological balance.

Nevertheless, the germs of conservation were inherent in his theories, and laid the groundwork for further investigations that would eventually lead to environmentalism and biological conservationism (not to mention the fields of evolutionary biology, genetics, aspects of modern germ theory, and a host of other scientific pursuits). As relevant as they remain, to end one’s reasoning at Darwin is to ignore the 150 years of new insights that his ideas have engendered.

One example of the way in which evolutionary theory has led to unforeseen paradigms involves the hypothesis that we may today be in the midst of a major extinction. A greater understanding of the ways in which species interact and depend on one another, even when those interactions are removed by degrees, has led to a growing concern among scientists and many laypersons about the current state of our biosphere.

Broad censuses of plant and animal populations were first begun during the time of Carolus Linnaeus a century before Darwin, and survive today as a routine staple of scientific fieldwork. Although originally geared toward discovery and classification, observations in this field, coupled with evolutionary theory and the budding science of paleontology, began to turn toward answering questions about behavior and population demographics. When a researcher would return to a remote spot armed with the notes of a predecessor and realize that the creatures in that area were more numerous, or gone, or had adapted to some change in the landscape, he would begin to wonder how those specific changes had occurred, and what the extent of the changes were. In other words, the general theory of evolution began to find more robust and exacting applications.

Over many years, population data accumulated to the point where it was possible to look at larger trends among varied communities. Meanwhile, paleontology (another field highly dependent on evolutionary theory) had grown increasingly sophisticated, and was offering a fairly comprehensive history of life’s development on Earth. This history included several cataclysmic periods of extinction, as well as a “background rate” of species disappearance during normal times.

Once current population data and pre-historical data were compared, it became apparent that the current rate of extinctions was well above the average rate. In a 2006 article on the subject, John Baez, a mathematical physicist at the University of California Riverside, compared some of the estimates that have been postulated:

“Phillip and Donald Levin estimate that right now one species is going extinct every 20 minutes, and that half of bird and mammal species will be gone in 200 to 300 years. Richard Leakey estimates a loss of between 50,000 and 100,000 species a year, and says that only during the Big Five mass extinctions was the rate comparably high. E. O. Wilson gives a similar estimate. In his book, Michael Benton reviews the sources of uncertainty and makes an estimate of his own: given that there are probably somewhere between 20 and 100 million species in total, he estimates an extinction rate of between 5,000 and 25,000 species per year. This means between 14 and 70 species wiped out per day.” (Extinction. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/)

Baez is careful to point out that these estimates are based on extrapolations of known populations – that there are many species for which no reliable data yet exists. The consensus, even among the most conservative skeptics that he quotes, however, shows that the rate is well above anything considered normal.

Image courtesy of math.ucr.edu

The concern over mass extinction would have been impossible for Darwin – he simply did not have the information available to him. Were he alive today, though, there is little doubt that he would have shared this concern, for it originates almost entirely from principles he fathered. It would be imprudent and irresponsible to suppose that because he never mentioned the possibility that we were witnessing a period of major extinctions that he would condone ignoring such information were it presented to him. By the same token, those of us alive today cannot base our conclusions about existence solely on the basis of a few century-old texts.

Extinctions, as unpalatable as they are, don’t necessarily mean that we should care about what happens to other forms of life, though. One thing that paleontology has shown us is that the worst tragedies always give rise to new life, often driving evolution into heretofore untold realms. Why, then, should we concern ourselves with other creatures?

One answer comes, in fact, from the necessity of survival and natural selection. Darwin’s observations about the interrelations of ecological systems included humans as part of the pantheon. This key point, which has caused so much controversy within religious institutions, is what makes our participation in keeping the biosphere in balance so vital. We, too, are subject to the scarcity, competition and other economies of nature, and we are highly adapted to depend on other living beings.

The musings about flowers’ dependence on bees that Darwin made in On the Origin of Species is perhaps of greater relevancy today than ever before. All angiosperms rely on some mechanism outside of the plant for pollination, and for a large proportion, that mechanism is the bee. But recently, North America has been suffering from a crisis that could endanger not only insects and flowers, but humans as well.

The culprit behind this crisis is a phenomenon called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). According to the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium, a regional task force formed in 1997 to address pest management in the beekeeping industry, CCD is characterized by “sudden colony death with a lack of adult bees in/in front of the dead-outs. Honey and bee bread are usually present and there is often evidence of recent brood rearing. In some cases, the queen and a small number of survivor bees may be present in the brood nest.”(Colony Collapse Disorder. http://maarec.psu.edu/ColonyCollapseDisorder.html)

No one knows what causes CCD. Hypotheses range from pesticides to parasites to climate change, with many scientists now convinced that the answer may involve a suite of factors.

Regardless of its cause, CCD poses a very real threat to human agriculture and food supplies. To understand why this is, one need only look at the vastness of the beekeeping industry in the United States, and the contribution it makes to food production:

“Bee pollination is responsible for $15 billion in added crop value, particularly for specialty crops such as almonds and other nuts, berries, fruits, and vegetables. About one mouthful in three in the diet directly or indirectly benefits from honey bee pollination. While there are native pollinators (honey bees came from the Old World with European colonists), honey bees are more prolific and the easiest to manage for the large scale pollination that U.S. agriculture requires. In California, the almond crop alone uses 1.3 million colonies of bees, approximately one half of all honey bees in the United States, and this need is projected to grow to 1.5 million colonies by 2010.” ( Questions and Answers: Colony Collapse Disorder. http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572)

If bee populations were to decline below sustainable levels, it would cause major setbacks for the growth of many crops in the U.S., which produces as much food for export to other nations as it does for its own citizens. Such a disruption in food supplies would cause havoc immediately in world economies, as food costs rose dramatically. It would also endanger food stocks that are already in peril from overpopulation and shifts in climate. Over the long term, world hunger would spike, and replenishing crops could become a much more difficult process that might never reach the level of output now enjoyed.

Humans’ relationship with bees is, of course, only one poignant example of the myriad ways in which we depend on other species for our own survival. The fact is that we depend on hundreds of other creatures for almost everything we do, from feeding us to producing silk ties to guiding the blind. When one extrapolates to include all of the interconnections between the species we use and the species we do not, almost no living thing on the planet can be excluded from the mix without that loss rippling back to affect humans.

It is this fact, no matter how one wishes to interpret the idea of evolutionary competition, that forces us to concern ourselves with the state of other species. Without them, we too would soon disappear.

It therefore makes no sense whatsoever to conclude from popular conceptions of Darwinian competition that we ought to ignore other species. Darwin never proposed it. Even if he had, it would be folly to narrow today’s understanding of evolution and ecosystem interaction to the parameters of a single man, dead long ago. Finally, the basic principles of Darwinian evolution place us in a position to realize that there are legitimate selfish reasons to pay attention to other forms of life – because we are all connected, both through our pasts and in the present.

How Many Sexes Are There?

This past summer, controversy erupted when South African athlete Caster Semenya won first place in the 800 meter run at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics. Rumors spread that Semenya was actually a man, and the International Association of Athletics Federations ordered that she undergo gender testing. Some – especially South Africans - were livid over the testing (which has not been compulsory since 1992), while others assumed that the results would prove her “real” sex.

The international sensation that Semenya caused was no doubt painful both for her and her family. However, it did briefly highlight a fact that is too often ignored – even feared – in the world today: that there is no black-and-white method for defining human sexuality.

At around the same time that the sports industry was reeling from the Semenya case, Gerald Callahan, an immunologist/pathologist at Colorado State University, released a book titled Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes. After considering the 65,000 “intersex” people born each year, he investigated the processes involved in the emergence of human sexuality. He concluded that the supposed dichotomy between male and female is nothing more than a social convention, inaccurate scientifically and damaging to society in general.

“I think the processes that generate sex in human beings are at least as complicated as those that generate fingerprints,” Callahan said in an interview for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s weekly science show Quirks and Quarks in October. “And almost every one of us has a unique set of fingerprints. I began to realize that thinking of this like the on/off switch on a radio wasn’t the right way to think of it, that it’s more like bass and treble. You know the pure bass and pure treble are unachievable, but there’s a million different possibilities in between.”

Semenya is a case in point. It was reported in September that she had internal testes, no ovaries or womb, and testosterone levels that were unusually high for a female. She is what most people would call a hermaphrodite: someone with both male and female sexual organs (though from a technical standpoint, this term is also inaccurate, because hermaphrodites produce both sperm and eggs).

Semenya’s hardly unusual among athletes. Genetic screening for contestants in the Olympics, which ended after the 1996 games, often revealed that “female” athletes were genetically male. According to an article that appeared in the e-magazine Science of Sport titled “Hermaphroditism in sport: More on the latest Caster Semenya allegations,” eight women in the ’96 Olympics alone carried the SRY gene, which normally appears only on the male-associated Y chromosome.

“These eight would have presented with the same results as Caster Semenya supposedly has - no uterus, no ovaries, and (possibly) internal testes. All eight were cleared to compete [as women].”

Sexual abnormalities are not limited to the world of sports. Plenty of average people do not meet the genetic criteria for what society considers “normal.” Yet some of these people go through their entire lives without ever being recognized as different.

Some people, for instance, have only one X chromosome, a condition known as Turner’s Syndrome. Because they lack the second X that most women have, these individuals often do not have functional ovaries, and may not fully develop other sexual traits, such as breasts. Despite this, they look like females, identify themselves as females, get married, and do everything else that double-X women do. According to the children’s health organization Nemours, “Despite the physical differences and other problems that can occur, with appropriate medical care, early intervention, and ongoing support, a girl with Turner's syndrome can lead a normal, healthy, and productive life.”

On the other end of the spectrum are women with XXX Syndrome, who may in fact have up to five X chromosomes! You wouldn’t know it if you saw them on a city street, though. They might not know they have it, either; there are rarely any physical indications of their overpopulated DNA.

The same is true for those with XXY Syndrome (also known as Klinefelter's Syndrome), who are often indistinguishable from normal males. According to the National Institutes of Health, “the XXY chromosome arrangement appears to be one of the most common genetic abnormalities known, occurring as frequently as 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 male births…Many men live out their lives without ever even suspecting that they have an additional chromosome.”

Male/female duality debunked: karyotyping, a method of viewing a person’s chromosomal structure, reveals the extra “X” chromosome in an individual with Klinefelter’s syndrome.
Image courtesy of www.genetics.com.au (adapted to highlight extra chromosome).

“Okay,” you’re probably thinking at this point, “clearly sexual ambiguity is more ordinary than we often recognize. But certainly these abnormalities represent the vast minority of humans. Most can clearly be pegged as either men or women.”

Not so fast. If, as Callahan stated, there are a “million different possibilities in between” the traditional sexes, then where on this broad spectrum can we draw a dividing line? If neither chromosomes nor reproductive organs can help us, what makes a given individual “completely male” or “completely female?”

When we begin to look at the hormones that control male and female characteristics – testosterone and estrogen, respectively – the picture gets even murkier. All people produce both kinds, regardless of sex. Though men tend to make more testosterone than women, the actual range of production can vary wildly, even over the lifetime of a single individual.

Although there are average ranges for testosterone levels in both males and females, pinning gender to these numbers would make distinguishing between the sexes more confusing, not less. For instance, a condition in women known as hirsutism causes increased body hair and other “male” characteristics to develop. The bulk of cases involve heightened testosterone levels.

According to the nonprofit Mayo Clinic, up to 10% of women in the U.S. have some degree of hirsutism. Does that mean that these folks have slid downward on the scale of womanhood? For that matter, do all women become somehow closer to male-dom when their estrogen levels drop after menopause?

Perhaps we’re asking the wrong questions when we use all-or-nothing approach. The false dichotomy of male versus female doesn’t fit with the facts. It causes shame and hardship for people like Semenya who are nearer the middle of the spectrum. For the rest of us, we’re doomed to a perpetual anxiety about our masculinity or femininity (not to mention a pernicious social divisiveness).In light of all this, we might want to start thinking differently about how we define ourselves. After all, as Callahan notes in the epilogue to his book, “we are all intersex, living somewhere in the infinite, but punctuated, stretch between MAN and WOMAN.”

Tips on Arguing: Pareidolia

In the October 2009 issue of Smithsonian Magazine, an article appeared in which art historian Henry Adams contended that abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock hid the letters of his name in his famous 1943 painting, Mural. Adams’ wife noticed the painter’s name among the otherwise formless mass of shapes in the piece, and once she pointed it out to her husband, he couldn’t help but notice it. Soon after, the world couldn’t help it, either.

But was this couple really seeing what they thought they were?

Perhaps not. Pareidolia - the tendency of the mind to incorrectly assign familiar patterns to images or sounds that don’t actually contain those patterns - is an extremely common phenomenon that could account for what the Adamses perceived.

The human mind is built to take shortcuts by using learned patterns of recognition to fill in gaps in our senses. To illustrate why this is normally so useful, pretend that you are on one side of a picket fence. A dog walks by on the other side. All that you actually see is a flash of fur, a glimpse of a leg. Yet you don’t come to the conclusion that the leg is floating around by itself. Your brain has no trouble figuring out what’s behind the fence, even with this tiny amount of data. It puts together a complete picture, filling in the gaps with your previous knowledge about what dogs look like, how they walk, and so on.

Imagine what the world would be like if you couldn’t draw conclusions based on patterns. Every time you saw a dog, you would not recognize it, even if it was only slightly different than another dog – indeed, even if the same dog walked away and came back. In short, you would be unable to learn anything.

Once in a while, the mind’s automatic gap-filler screws up by creating patterns that aren’t actually there. It’s caused plenty of controversies in popular culture. For instance, as long as rock music has been inciting kids to rebellious acts, some parents have convinced themselves that the artists are embedding Satanic messages in their songs that can be heard when played backwards. And indeed, the parents do hear the messages, at least in their own minds. This is often because someone has already told them what words to listen for. Their minds select the pattern they expect to hear, et voila! Jim Morrison’s lyric, “treasures there,” becomes “I am Satan” when played in reverse.

Pareidolia have even been known to spark conspiracy theories, such as when NASA released the now-infamous “Face on Mars” photographs. The vaguely visage-resembling mound of dirt was taken by a number of UFO enthusiasts as incontrovertible “proof” of artificial construction - and therefore intelligent extraterrestrial life. This group also accused NASA of “covering up” any reports of alien life. The conspiracy theory persists today - although these same people would laugh if you told them that a cloud that looked like a face was proof that there were people inside making it rain (and that meteorologists were covering that up).

What about the Pollock painting, then? Could he really have hidden his name in there? As the article mentioned, “It may not be possible to answer the question definitively unless scientists use X-ray scanning or some other method to trace which pigments were put down first.”

Until then, the jury is out. But don’t be surprised if this turns out to be one more example of someone’s own mind seeing what it wants to see.

Grassroots Astroturfing and Political Terrorism

What Keith Olbermann Reveals About Protesting and the Media

Vietnam War Protest, Washington, 1965

Tea Party Protest, Philadelphia, 2009

Keith Olbermann clearly isn’t happy about the recent spate of protests flaring up around health care in town hall meetings across the country. MSNBC’s infamous left-leaning talking head made his disdain known to the world on the program Countdown last week with an excoriating comparison:

“Not merely spreading lies, but convincing a dissatisfied portion of the population to believe their propaganda and to act out in anger…When Hamas does it or Hezbollah does it it’s called terrorism. Why should Republican lawmakers and the astroturf groups organizing on behalf of the health care industry be viewed any differently?”

The Countdown segment, which featured scenes from some of the various meetings, attempted to highlight the connections between some of the protesters and right-wing interest groups. In one shot, an anonymous protester at a CT meeting wearing an Athem: Blue Cross Blue Shield shirt was singled out as a “likely” member of the insurance industry. Another scene showed a meeting led by Democratic Congressman Steve Kagen in Kewaunee, WI. A protester named Heather Blish was quoted as saying she was “just a mom” and that she had no affiliation with the Republican Party. Olbermann pointed out that her LinkedIn profile stated she had previously been vice chair of the Republican Party for Kewaunee County until the year before.

As Olbermann made his diatribe, the caption that floated on the screen threatened the viewer with “Political Terrorism.” His central message was not simply that some folk had misrepresented themselves: it was that the political Right’s involvement in orchestrating some of the opposition that's occurred surrounding healthcare is equitable to bombing or killing people.

Olbermann’s overblown statements, however ludicrous and seething with hatred they might have been, raise some significant questions about the nature of political organization, as well as the role that the news media plays in covering and “framing” societal issues.

The Right is the New Left

If Olbermann really wanted to prove that the Republicans were choreographing the protests, he need only have listened to NPR's On The Media. In last week’s episode, co-host Bob Garfield recounted an interview he had back in April with Adam Brandon, spokesman for the Right-leaning Freedom Works Foundation, to discuss his association’s leadership in organizing the now-famous “Tea Party Protests.”

Not only did Brandon openly admit Freedom Works’ responsibility for the protests; he also went on to explain how his group acquired the effective tactics it employed:

“When we get our jobs in our organization,” said Brandon, “the first thing you do is you sit down with some of Saul Alinsky’s books, Rules for Radicals. And we read that book and we study that book, and everything that we've been trying to do here comes straight out of those pages.”

That’s right. The Right got its playbook from the Left, who pioneered the very same methods that it now denounces as they come at it from the other side.

Of course, Olbermann doesn’t call it the same thing. He uses the word “astroturfing” (a media term for a public relations stunt performed to look as if it arose spontaneously) to describe the approach behind the tea-partiers and health-doubters. When people like Alinsky and Abbie Hoffman did it, it was called “grassroots activism.”

Aside from connotation, there is nothing that sets the essential technique of these two concepts apart.

To wit: in the 60's, Liberals used their media resources to call people to action, too. Television didn't play much of a role, but alternative radio, newspapers, books, flyers, and so on, were all utilized to get people together.

Granted, most of these were underground resources with little funding, and most didn't have a national distribution. But they were all led by some figure with ties to a political organization, an agenda, and access to a media outlet.

Certainly, though, there must be a difference between two brothers churning out an alternative rag from their basement, and well-coffered political wonks schmoozing with federal officials from their headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue? If not from tools or techniques, what could account for the apparent incompatibility of these wildly divergent images?

It could be argued that the sheer scale of their media operation makes the new protest organizers fundamentally different. But scale has never been part of the definition of grassroots activism. Flash mobs are called together by a single leader using the Internet, which is an international media resource (can’t get much bigger on the scale than that), and we generally place these events under the "grassroots" category, too.

Likewise, no grassroots organization ever restricted people from donating as much money as they wanted to a campaign. And regardless of their closeness to Washington, the people who organize and participate in any protest or rally are American citizens who do really believe in what they're saying and deserve to have a voice as much as anyone else. Their interests and ideas don’t become less relevant just because they have money and connections.

In fact, the most successful such campaign to date came straight from none other than our current president. When running for office, Obama’s operation was referred to as “grassroots” by media and politicians alike, despite having a massive organizational structure backed by millions of dollars and strategists who issued in-depth directives to the volunteers. Millions of Americans legitimized that juggernaut with their votes.

The End of the Radical?

If Right-wing organizers are having such a successful time using the Left’s methods, whatever happened to Leftist rabble-rousing?

A multitude of reasons could be trotted out to explain why the climate for Liberal protest has grown tepid over time. Part of it’s generational. The Democratic Party became a popular haven for ex-activists after the 60’s, and as people settled into their lives they also quieted down a bit.

Another factor that may have caused protesting to drop among Liberals was the end of the Vietnam Draft. Young people coming of age during that war faced the stark possibility of becoming cannon fodder. Scott Lackey, Co-Founder and Strategic Director of the New York-based ad agency Jugular Advertising, summed the indignation it caused him and other young men best on his blog, The New Advertising: “We were personally motivated to convince the government not to send us off to die. And we were loud and noisy about it. Lots of us. And our girlfriends too.”

Other nations emulated the grassroots protest ethic. This protest occurred in Wellington, New Zealand, in 1969.

The following generation didn’t feel the need to protest as much in the same manner as the last. David Kennedy, Stanford historian and author of the book “Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945,” pointed out in a New York Times article in April that “This generation found more effective ways to change the world. It’s signed up for political campaigns, and it’s not waiting for things to get so desperate that they feel forced to take to the streets.”

Possibly the biggest blow to the modern protest movements, though, was 9/11. Immediately after the attacks, dissent of any sort would be used to question a person’s patriotism. In an update to an article that first appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review in 2002 about the globalization protest movement, journalist John Giuffo said, “In terms of the…movement, 9/11 changed a lot…The drama of the globalization-related protests was play-acted anarchy compared to our glimpse of the real thing that fall morning, and it seems like we’ve lost our collective stomach for such measures.”

By the time the U.S. had recovered from its post-9/11 fever, pent-up Liberal activists channeled their energy into the 2008 presidential campaign – which, of course, resulted in the victory of one of the greatest political organizers of all time. The Activist became the Establishment.

Framing Public Ignorance

Protesters in New York campaign against bonuses to AIG executives after the global collapse of the financial system. AIG was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses.

To be sure, activism on the Left hasn’t completely disappeared. Over the past few years, demonstrations have been congealed around such causes as the Iraq War and the Global Credit Crisis. They’ve largely been ignored, but they’ve been around. Is it likely that Olbermann would refer to any of these as political terrorism? Or Obama’s campaign?

Probably not.

If Olbermann’s invective isn’t enough evidence of well-poisoning aimed at the Right, take a look at the angle FOX News chose: on August 12, the news agency released a report by Bill Sammon titled “Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest.” The article referred to a 2002 incident in which then-president Bush was accosted by left-wing activists during a fundraiser in Portlad, OR.

“Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest,” the article said, “none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!"”

FOX made a conscious effort to contrast coverage of the 2002 protest with the current hubbub over healthcare – particularly the more violent fringes of the movement. The implied message of this article was that the “liberal media” was going easy on its political buddies.

Portland, OR, 2002

Although the article sounded more like agitated whining than impartial analysis, the story did raise a salient point. The facts that a news source chooses to include – as well as the ones it leaves out – make a huge difference in the way the public comes to understand an issue. The way the story is “framed” matters as much as the story itself.

Ever since partisan media outlets like FOX and MSNBC have risen to national prominence, framing has intensely worried media scholars. The representations that news media build for their audiences, if not carefully watched over, can cause all sorts of distortions in public perception. At their worst, systematically biased portrayals (whether intentional or not) can result in a complete failure of the public to understand what’s going on.

This is exactly what happened at the beginning of Hurricane Katrina, when a popular misconception about the evacuation resources at the disposal of poor residents in New Orleans contributed to the deaths of hundreds of people. During a 2005 panel lecture at Stanford University, Hazel Markus, co-director of the Research Institute of Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, explained how news sources got it wrong:

“Most media and individual accounts reflected a middle class view of the world. This view assumes that the sensible response to the impending hurricane was to evacuate. And by implication, those who stayed made poor choices, didn’t take control of their circumstances, and bore responsibility for their plight. This focus on problem individuals and victim blaming was very prevalent in the mainstream media in the first week of the coverage. There was almost no effort to try to think about why evacuation strategies might be stratified by income, or to represent Katrina from the point of view of those who could not evacuate.”

In that case, assumptions that factored into the way the story was presented led to the loss of lives - and the blaming of victims for their own fates. Presumptive journalism doesn't usually lead to such dangerous conclusions. But if it's cost lives before, it can do so again. Self-scrutiny is essential in preventing that.

The kinds of concerns that Markus and other academics are voicing haven't trickled down into the mainstream conversation yet. But they have influenced the ways that media venues portray themselves. Specifically, the news agencies have become much more adept at abusing framing techniques for their own purposes. That bodes poorly for those of us who need the media's contextualizing apparatus to penetrate the hype and rhetoric.

The service that makes journalists and news corporations vital to our political and cultural institutions is their ability to investigate and contextualize events so that the audience can place them in a proper perspective and come to its own conclusions. On the whole, America’s mainstream media today flunk that test. The sources that uncritically buy into staged events are being gullible (or advancing an agenda), and the sources that hyperbolize are being myopic and reactionary. Both are equally misrepresentative. Both hinder the conversation rather than setting a tone for discussion. And that makes everyone less informed.

What, then, is the short-form context of the health care nay-saying campaigns? You might as well call them grassroots, since they fit the bill synonymously. They matter, but they're full of bad information and consist of fewer supporters than they'd like the world to believe. We should listen to them. Correct them where they’re factually wrong, and negotiate the points on which all can agree. After that, muddle through the remainder – because we’re all still going to be in this together tomorrow.

That's truth. Not political terrorism.

Picture Credits:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

The Word Family Game

Discovery:

Adapted from Sentence Contruction: Writing and Combining Standard English Sentences, by Alice C. Pack and Lynn E. Henrichsen (Newbury House Publishers, 1980):

“There are four classes of content words: Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, and Adverbs.

“A content word in one class usually has related forms in other classes. All these related forms make up a word family.

“Some word families have forms in all four classes. Others do not.

Example: A grateful (adjective) man may show his gratitude (noun) by thanking someone gratefully (adverb). (In English there is no verb form to express this idea of being grateful or showing gratitude.)”

***

The following sentences all contain several unusual forms of content words. Most are real words, but one in each sentence is not. This fake word is an imaginary “fourth member” of its word family.

For instance, in the sentence, “The boy cleves,” the false word “cleves” is an imaginary verb form that completes the word family of cleverness, clever, and cleverly.

Can you tell what the false words are, as well as the three real members of their word families?

(NOTE: The answers are based on the lists in Sentence Construction. Other sources may differ.)

***

SENTENCES

1. You don’t have to review your tax form by yourself. It’s transferable; advante with a corrector.

2. Time may not be limitable. Humans cannot computably measure our temporariness.

3. At the moment when Pinocchio became a boy, did his soul essentialize itself, or was it reminiscently acquisitive?

4. Even before the coffin enters the chamber for a wake, funeral home directors preparatorily solemnize their space. The goal is to balance an atmosphere of familiarity for loved ones with an atmosphere that is endurable for acquaintances.

Image courtesy of factoidz.com.

Intelligent Design and the False Divide Between Evolution and Religion

Discovery:

The unstated major premise behind every argument Intelligent Design proponents employ is that science can somehow be used to support a supernatural cause. Everything boils down to this one (not inconsequential) assumption. It’s the reason that these and other promoters of “creation” models fight to have their ideas taught in science classrooms.

This assumption is wrong by definition. Science is defined by a particular method of gathering and evaluating information (the scientific method). Anything that proposes to call itself science must therefore follow this method. ID does not and cannot follow it. By calling itself science, ID confuses the compatible realms of science and theology, actively undermining the integrity of both.

To understand why ID doesn’t fall under the purview of science, it’s necessary to understand what science does as well as what it does not do.

The testable hypothesis is the crux of scientific method. A testable hypothesis is an answer to a question, phrased as a fact which can then be shown to be accurate or inaccurate through some form of experimentation.

For instance, you may start with the question, “Why is the sky blue?” You might form several hypotheses from this question, such as “The sky is blue because there’s a giant mirror up there reflecting the ocean.”

There are two potential outcomes when you formulate your hypothesis. If the mirror is there, then you’re correct. If the mirror isn’t there, then you’re wrong, and must offer a new hypothesis.

Although the mirror example may seem ridiculous to us these days, that’s only because we’ve been up there. We’ve seen for ourselves that there cannot be giant mirrors in the sky; we’ve tested this hypothesis. It failed, but until a few hundred years ago it would have been a perfectly viable notion.

By scientific standards, the ID hypothesis is much worse than the mirror hypothesis. Why? Because a mirror is something that we can observe. It exists in the material world, and not outside of it.

The purpose of the scientific method is to discover and describe natural processes, such as how clouds form. This is also the limit of science – it cannot be used to investigate anything outside of the natural world. The scientific method can only be used on hypotheses that fall within the realm of material testability. A supernatural creator is by definition “outside” the realm of purely natural processes, and therefore impossible to prove by scientific means.

How would one go about studying a being that is outside of observation? How would a scientist perform a controlled experiment to learn about the properties of something that purportedly does not have normal physical properties?

This is the entire problem with Intelligent Design. If you claim that the mechanism of creation is something that by definition cannot be proven using the scientific method, then you are dealing with something other than science – which is where it ought to stay.

* * * * *

Of course, that’s not what ID proponents will say. They’ll tell you that the “evolutionists” are trying to disprove god. They’ll tell you that they see things like irreducible complexity and the “fine-tuning” of the cosmological constants as evidence for creation that “Darwinists” ignore.

Both of these claims are misleading.

Many real scientists are atheists, it’s true. Their personal beliefs may or may not be a result of their scientific knowledge. It’s just as likely that many people who started out as atheists are attracted to science, rather than being actively deconverted by what they learn later on.

Whatever the case may be, focusing on the relatively high proportion of atheists in scientific pursuits ignores the fact that many scientists follow some kind of religious teaching. You’ll find every kind of belief system among scientists, from Christian to Pantheist.

Although our concern is with evolutionary scientists in particular, tenets of evolutionary theory have been independently verified in nearly every scientific field (the observed microevolution of viruses that made the “swine flu” and the subsequent vaccine possible, for instance). Because of this, most scientists accept the basic concepts of evolution, no matter what field they work in. So it’s not inappropriate to consider the scientific community as a whole.

It shouldn’t be surprising that so many religious people are comfortable with evolution. Many of the ancient religions, some of which are still around, practiced Earth worship, which is friendly to evolution. So are Deists, who believe that a god set the universe in motion but no longer actively participates.

Buddhists have long embraced the theory. As Radhika Abeysekera points out in her book, Practising the Dhamma with a View to Nibbāna: “It is also interesting to read of the Buddha’s description of life on Earth…Incidentally, this description is similar to the description of evolution given by scientists.”

Christianity as a whole does not reject evolution either. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said that evolution was “more than a hypothesis,” and that Charles Darwin’s ideas were sound, provided they took into account God’s responsibility for creation. A few years later, USA Today ran a story in which Pope Benedict XVI made a more nuanced proclamation:

"I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science," the pope was quoted as saying…Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.”

Although Pope Benedict’s comments are slightly more contentious than Pope John Paul’s, both are willing to accept the basic concepts of evolution without feeling that their faith need be threatened. That’s because most scientists and most religious leaders understand the very thing that Intelligent Design proponents do not: science cannot disprove a god anymore than it can prove it.

The misconception that the ID community pushes about there being some anti-religious component to evolution may be in part a reaction to a sense that science has somehow stripped off the perceived strength of their chosen god. But this need not be the only way to think about it. Yes, a vast number of phenomena can be explained by natural mechanisms that don’t “require” a god. But that doesn’t mean that those are the only mechanisms that have ever been at work.

As my mother, a devout evangelical (though not fundamentalist) Christian, is fond of pointing out, who’s to say how god chose to manifest the universe? Who’s to say god didn’t use the natural mechanisms of the Big Bang, chance, and punctuated equilibrium as a method of creation? Evolution doesn’t dispute any of these possibilities. It only disputes the idea that it can prove god through them.

* * * * *

The other wrongful portrayal that ID proponents present – that evolutionary scientists ignore criticisms of their own theory – is just as much hogwash. Even Darwin made changes to the theory during his lifetime.

Evolution today looks like Origin of the Species only in its most basic principles. Scientists are constantly tweaking their ideas. The entire reason that they use the scientific method is because it allows them to open up more questions.

This is not a weakness of evolution. It is its strength. Theories never go unchanged – Newton’s theories of motion, for example, had to be overhauled when Einstein came along. That’s how science works. It’s always provisional, building on ideas that work and discarding those that don’t.

There are legitimate debates about how evolution works, too. We debate how to draw the family tree. We wonder whether most changes are adaptive, or if factors like genetic drift also play a major role. We update our models of species classification, and adjust timelines when new evidence comes in. Although, as Pope Benedict said, we can’t go back and get all of prehistory into a lab, we can make plenty of testable hypotheses. Evolution has been borne out in every one of these.

One of the most famous examples of using the scientific method to make a prediction about evolution was conducted by a team of scientists from the University of Chicago, the Academy of Natural Sciences, and Harvard University in 2004. This team looked at fossil evidence of fish to figure out what a transitional fossil between two species should be and what layer of rock it should be buried in. They then looked at geological maps to find out where in the world they might be able to find this fossilized fish. Their prediction turned out to be entirely correct: they discovered Tiktaalik roseae, a perfect fit between lobe-finned fish and the earliest known tetrapods.

The theory of evolution is, well, always evolving. But despite what ID claims, these changes support the theory rather than contradicting it.

So what of the other objections that Intelligent Designers lob against evolution? Unfortunately, most of them employ fallacious logic, are outdated or irrelevant. The reason that they work is simple – it takes much less time to make a false claim than it does to demonstrate why that claim is false. The ID community has all day to come up with illegitimate claims against evolution (far too many to go into here). Scientists can only devote a small portion of their time to explaining why those claims are wrong; most of their time is taken up by actually performing scientific investigations.

Besides, the few legitimate criticisms that ID proponents do have are also criticisms that are being investigated by real scientists, using hypotheses that can be tested. Having legitimate criticisms doesn’t make your ideas scientific.

The way that ID portrays it, evolution is an all-or-nothing scenario. Criticism of any part of the theory becomes a rebuttal against the whole thing, and any acceptance of it becomes a proclamation of atheism. These falsities constitute the real damage that they do to science – and human culture as a whole.

It should be noted that one cannot speak on this subject without a warning to scientists as well. A few voices in this community have adopted the thinking patterns of ID and actively sought to deconvert people to atheism via scientific evidence. It’s fine to be atheist and to promote atheism. Atheist scientists must be careful, though, in how they approach the argument. Science may certainly inform our beliefs about the world, but it cannot have the final word on god. Just as it can’t prove, it can’t absolutely rule out the existence of otherworldly beings. Nobody should pretend that it can.

Science can’t draw conclusions about things it can’t test. You can’t test a supernatural being. Because of that, Intelligent Design proponents can’t make testable hypotheses, and cannot correctly claim that their ideas belong in science classrooms.

The cultural wedge that Intelligent Design tries to force between religious communities and science is a damnable false dichotomy. For this reason it shouldn’t be taught anywhere.

Picture Credits:

1. Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics

2. The Search for Tiktaalik roseae

Podcasts: Media Democracy, Whenever You Want It

Journey:

National Public Radio is doing it. The Economist magazine is doing it. Your own sister may even be doing it.

Podcasting has become an international phenomenon that may change the very nature of television and radio. Yet relatively few people know what it is, and even fewer have yet to grasp its potential.

In the simplest of terms, a podcast is an audio file. Much like an mp3, you can download it from the Internet onto your computer or iPod, and then listen to it at your leisure. The most obvious advantage of this format is that, unlike a conventional broadcast, you don’t have to be tuned in at a particular time or place to receive it.

But there’s so much more about podcasting that makes it more attractive than “traditional” media.

Dan Carlin should know. Since 1989, he’s been immersed in media production, first on television and later on the radio. Today he makes his living as the host of two podcasts – Common Sense with Dan Carlin, a righteously indignant political talk show, and Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History, wherein he recounts historical events through narrative.

Carlin was an early adaptor. Back in 1995 – ten years before the first modern podcasts – he was hosting a radio program called Crossfire. “I got a call from a guy from a software company,” he says, “and he offered to pay me more than I was making at that time.” He ended up working on a project with a web development company called Homebrew Networks that would put his audio content on the Internet.

“We wanted to demonstrate to people what was possible,” he says. Thus was born the first incarnation of his Common Sense show.

Carlin believes that podcasting can raise the bar of public discourse, especially among youth. “The level of engagement is much different,” he says. “We get a lot more college-aged people than we ever did before. We’re reaching segments of the population that it’s important to reach. When you’re that age, you’re still idealistic about politics. By the time people reach the age of the average radio listener, they’re done thinking about it.”

Since 2005, podcasting and its video counterpart – known as vodcasting – have blossomed, driven particularly by young web natives. The ability to access a file from any computer in the world at virtually no extra cost to the provider (or the listener) makes it an enticingly inexpensive investment with a limitless possibility for exposure. Unlike television, newspapers, and radio, there are no transmitters, presses, or other distribution costs involved. Any person with an Internet connection and a microphone can create one.

When iTunes burst onto the music scene, podcasts piggybacked on its success, taking advantage of the programs’ user-friendly browsing and listener-generated ratings system. Add to this the fact that an individual podcast can theoretically exist on the Internet forever, and you had all the makings of a media revolution. Thousands of podcasts now exist, covering topics that range from philosophy to Marie Dubuque’s Easy Peasy Gardening.

Carlin’s success as a podcaster is an illustration of the profitability of what, for all its advantages, remains largely a niche media product. “On the radio, 10,000 people in the area might be able to hear me,” he explains. “I’ll probably only appeal to about 2% of them. On the Internet, I’ll still capture that same core percentage, but of a much larger pie: everyone in the world.”

Podcasts have also brought back an age-old dream of amateur content that began with the advent of radio.

In its earliest days, radio was flooded with amateur broadcasters who conducted many groundbreaking experiments, often out of their own homes. In his book, Radio and Television Regulation, historian Hugh Richard Slotten says, “amateurs tended to view the spectrum as a new, wide-open frontier, akin to the American West, where men could pursue individual interests free from repressive authoritarian and hierarchical institutions.” He points out that in 1912 the New York Times estimated that there were several hundred thousand amateur stations in existence.

That same year the government passed the Radio Act of 1912, which required all broadcasters to obtain licenses. This was the beginning of a series of regulations that would eventually consolidate broadcast ownership in the hands of a powerful few for most of the 20th century.

It remains to be seen whether podcasting will meet a similar fate. For now, amateurs – and professionals – have found a new frontier.

Carlin hasn’t regretted his move from radio one bit. “It’s the best job I’ve ever had,” he says. “Being in traditional media is horribly overrated, especially from a creative standpoint. In radio, for instance, your boss is the program director. He’d always be telling you what to do. But these people are the ones who failed at the same job you’re doing. It makes no sense. Now, nobody tells me what to do, and I’ve never been more proud of my work.”

Health Insurance: Not Like Car Insurance

Inquiry:

In an interview with NPR’s All Things Considered this afternoon, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) talked up his committee’s proposals for health care reform. Although Hoyer spoke of retaining choice for Americans, host Robert Seigel pointed out that under the proposed plan people would effectively be penalized for not having insurance, because it included a 2.5% tax.

In response, Hoyer said, “Everybody needs to have health insurance, sort of like everybody needs to have automobile insurance. The reason for that is that we know accidents are inevitable, and we know as well that illness is inevitable.”

Whether one believes in mandatory health insurance or not, Hoyer’s analogy is poorly constructed.

First of all, inevitability has never been a precedent that lawmakers have applied uniformly. Death is more inevitable than sickness and much more likely than being in a car accident. Everyone dies. But no one would force you to buy life insurance.

Despite sharing a moniker, health insurance doesn’t resemble other types of insurance in other important ways. Most forms of insurance are meant to protect against some kind of unexpected catastrophe, such as a flood or fire. Some aspects of health insurance address the same kind of event, but the bulk of a health plan pays for what, in other realms, would be called maintenance. Annual checkups are not akin to car accidents; they are more like tune-ups. Your tire rotations aren’t paid for by Progressive. You don’t call AllState when your toilet backs up. You call a plumber.

If you decide not to call a plumber, though, the only person who suffers is you. The same is true if you ignore your health. This illustrates yet another area where Hoyer’s reasoning falls apart. Not every type of automobile insurance is mandatory. The only coverage mandated by the state is liability. Why? Because in an accident that involves two people, the responsible party needs to be able to repair the damage they’ve caused to someone else.

This distinction is vital. If you drive into a tree, it’s your problem. If your car gets broken into, it doesn’t affect anyone else. These kinds of insurance are not mandated precisely because personal risk is a personal (not social) responsibility.

Finally, automobile insurance is at the most basic level a voluntary “opt-in” cost. That is, you can avoid participating in insurance simply by not driving. Plenty of people do this. But you can’t live without your body. This makes compulsory health insurance an inescapable ultimatum that amounts to a tax on being alive. It takes away your freedom to not participate.

When then-candidate Obama unveiled his ideas for health care reform during the elections, he made a lot of noise about avoiding any kind of mandatory system. This won more support from self-identified Democratic voters during the primaries than Hillary Clinton’s plan, which included coercive structures. Siegel mentioned this to Hoyer during their discussion. Hoyer dismissed him by pointing out that Obama recognized the need to compromise. But it wouldn’t be Obama who would be compromised here – it would be the voters.

Health care does need reform. A nationalized system may be the best way to accomplish this. But there are better methods available to us than ones that rest on false analogies.