Wrong and Wronger

A month ago I wrote about telling off a Nobel laureate (see Wrong). That is a conceit on my part, because I doubt Dr. Josephson will ever read it. Someone read it though, because it sparked a flurry of response from some Answers in Genesis Creationists (yes, I know that is redundant). One in particular, identifying himself only as Bonesiii Dromer, was moved to a truly spectacular display of sanctimonious bombast. After some thought and considerable delay (I was exceptionally busy) I finally posted a response to the nonsense.

--- More after the break ---

Wrong.

image source

Today I got to do something that just doesn't happen every day.

I told a Nobel laureate
they are wrong

It's really not terribly interesting, so here is the short version (after the break):

Click for more.

Science Denial, at Darryl Cunningham Investigates

Simply too good not to share.

Image: Darryl Cunningham Investigates

That's merely the first in a series. Take a few minutes and read the whole thing.

Science Blogs Survey

I just participated in the Science Bloggers Census. There was some question in my mind if this blog really qualifies, but Edward was kind enough to link me to an article answering that question of "Just what is a Science Blog?".

Looking back at my recent posts, I haven't been posting very much science related content recently, but I'm also counting some of my mathematical posts at my other blog. That blog gets more traffic, and in a way it's even more scientific than what I write here, but most people don't consider games as science.

The survey results will appear in September at http://labs.fieldofscience.com/ .

Three Times Fast

Say the following three times fast, I dare you.

20-Iodo-14,15-epoxyeicosa-8(Z)-enoyl-3-azidophenylsulfonamide:
photoaffinity labeling of a 14,15-epoxyeicosatrienoic acid receptor.

Or for that matter, once, without pausing for breathe.

The next time someone tells they think statistics are hard to understand, I'm going to send them to a biochemist.

Happy Darwin Day!

Something a little different for Darwin Day (Charles Darwin's 202th Birthday!); I'd like to introduce my new co-blogger, Darwin the Cockatiel.


Darwin likes to assist me by landing on the keyboard while I am typing and supervising my fingers. This supervision consists of nipping at my fingers if he feels are not moving in an appropriate manner. By his definition, "appropriate" means they ought to be scritching his head instead of pecking at the keys.

Darwin came to us as as a "found" bird while we were searching for our own escaped bird. Some other people contacted us about a bird they found. It wasn't our bird, but we agreed to take care of him and help look for the original owner - which we did, but no takers. He's a delightful creature though and we are happy to keep him. Despite considerable effort we never did find our own bird, but for a short time we were fostering two Cockatiels. Apparently finding a bird that belongs to someone else is much easier than finding a bird that belongs to you. Maybe there are a lot of bird owners that don't want to be bird owners. No matter, we thing Darwin is a keeper!

The name was suggested by my wife, because we both admire Charles Darwin's contribution to science,  and when the bird puffs up the feathers around his beak, there is a striking resemblance.
com

Image found here, source unknown

Darwin can be contacted at Darwin dot The dot Cockatiel at Gmail dot Com

And now for our next musical number!

And now for our next musical number!

 [Found on Pharyngula]

edit - forgot a title! Silly me.
edit = forgot the video! Doh!!

Data Science, Science Data

Image Nature News

The latest Nature News has an article titled Computational Science: ... Error, describing the increasing difficulty scientists face as the computer programming required for research becomes more and more complex. I face a similar prob in my work. Much of the work I do requires a fair amount of database management as a precursor to the analysis. Most of this is basic SAS programming, with some tricky bits here and there, but it is all within reach of my programming skills. Most researchers don't have my programming skills (and with a BS in CoSci, many statisticians don't have my programming skills), which is one of the reasons they might come in for statistical help in the first place. Database management is an important skill for an applied statistician, but it is not my primary skill ("Dammit Jim, I've a statistician, not a bricklayer").

The point of this is not to blow my own horn, but that I have a set of skills for managing databases that is nearly independent of my statistical knowledge. The Nature News article points out the problems with programming skills, but the same problem exist with database skills: Some researchers don't understand the basics of recording data in an organized manner, and disorganized data can lead to as many problems as disorganized programming.

It is not too unusual for researchers to bring me data (typically in a spreadsheet), and sometime I spot specific problems that could be error in how they collected and recorded the data. This is fairly important, because if the data is wrong then my analysis will be too. Sometimes I can fix these errors for them, other times I have to have the researcher fix the problems, because it requires medical knowledge and familiarity with (or access to) the original data source to make the correction. Once these bugs have been ironed out, all it well and I do my statistical thing.

There is another sort of error though, and it is much more subtle. These are the errors in the data that don't really look like errors. When someone brings me their data and there is nothing obviously wrong, I probably don't question it, and proceed with the analysis. There are some common ways this might happen: cut & paste errors, "bad" sorts that scramble the data, inconsistency in data entry, all simple mistakes. Sometimes evidence of these errors shows up during my database management prep work or during the analysis itself. Obviously if a mistake is found, it gets fixed. However, if my experience with finding errors in the late stages of analysis is any indicator, then if seem likely that some of these errors are never found. The "garbage-in, garbage-out" principle applies, and some of the analyses I've produced were likely garbage, because the data was garbage.

The good news is this sort of error is unlikely to contribute much to the larger of body of scientific knowledge. By the nature of statistics (and with an assumption of some randomness) these subtle errors are unlikely to produce significant results, less likely to be in agreement with other published studies, and certainly unlikely to be verified by follow-up studies. The bad news is that some simple, perhaps even careless mistakes can ruin months or even years of research effort, which is a waste of effort.

Finally, this brings me that other set of skills: teaching. Whenever I have the opportunity to work with people who are starting off on new research projects, I try to teach the basic data-skills, the do's and don'ts, to help them get good data and do good research. Not everyone is interested in spreadsheets and databases, but it is not too hard to convince researchers that a little extra effort up front to get good data will pay dividends down the road when it comes to publications. It certainly pays me dividends when it comes to actually doing the statistical analysis - my primary skill - rather than spending hours (or days, or weeks) trying to track down what went wrong with the data, or unknowingly analyzing junk data.

On the Rise of Science Comedy

I bring you Helen Pilcher of Nature.com on the rise of science comedy:

The comedic potential of particle accelerators or neurotransmission may not be obvious, but in the right hands they can be a recipe for mirth. And science has its own cast of wacky characters — from bongo-playing physicist Richard Feynman to gold-nosed astronomer and moose owner Tycho Brahe.

Moose owner? Now I'm, jealous! The full article also discusses the Ig Noble prizes, which are always a hoot.

And Shame! I haven't posted here for a month. What can I say, except that life is BUSY.

Thor's Hammer?

From POPSCI - Trapping Lightning in a block of acrylic.

There are many unusual things to see around Newton Falls, Ohio—the Wal-Mart with hitching posts for Amish buggies, the Army base with helicopters and tanks proudly arranged on hills—but I was here for the most unusual thing of all: the local Dynamitron. I was here to make frozen lightning.

Click over to POPSCI for the full story and a video. Cool stuff.

[Found on Proof] 

Scientopia Goes Online

Many of the diaspora from Scienceblogs have reconvened at a new site, including several I read regularly. Check out Scientopia to see what these science bloggers are up to.

This was going to be longer

This was going to be a longer post, but then I got in a fight with the new Blogger editor, ending in my switching back to the old Blogger editor. Therefore, this post is shorter. This post was going to have a stronger theme, but I used up all my time on the aforementioned editor. Therefore, this post is a loosely themed collection of links. Take it for what it is worth.

Class M: Support Honesty in the Climate Wars

Neurologica: Terrible Anti-Vaccine Study, Terrible Reporting

The Sensuous Curmudgeon: Another Creationist Assault on Einstein

Greg Laden: Religion has a major conflict with science, but does this conflict also exist within the sciences?

I really liked Greg's opening paragraph. There is no conflict between science and religion unless you choose for there to be one. Consider who may benefit from such conflict.

The Airspeed of an Unladen Swallow in Flight

"WHAT ... is the airspeed of a laden swallow in flight?"

One of the classic questions of science popular culture Monty Python fans, but before weighing down a 20 gram bird with the fruit of a Cocos nucifera, someone really ought to look into how they fly normally.

And of course, someone has.

"In order to maintain airspeed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?"

Actually, wrong. By comparing the European Swallow with bird species of similar body mass, we can estimate that the swallow beats its wings 18 times a second with an amplitude of 18 cm:

Species	Body mass	Frequency	Amplitude
Zebra Finch	13 g	27 Hz	11 cm
European Swallow	20 g	≈ 18 Hz?	≈ 18 cm?
Downy Woodpecker	27 g	14 Hz	29 cm
Budgerigar	34 g	14 Hz	15 cm

Check out the full article at Style.org.


Or ... you could go with the original research!



Now that I think about it, I must have posted this once before. But what the heck, it's worth repeating. :-)

Now This is Progress!

Robot fetches beer. We should all have one of these.


[Hat-Tip-2 Terrence Tao (via Google Buzz)]

You Can't Trust Science!

I get it - I get the whole Atheism versus Religion thing. In matters related to science, the atheists generally have it right, and it's not too hard to find someone who is: A) a kook, and B) religious, that is sadly wrong on a given scientific matter. I'm cool with that.

There one thing that bugs me though; this video offers a good example of a bad argument. It is an error to say that because religion has little to offer in terms of scientific thought and progress, it has nothing to offer at all. Religion has a lot to offer*, just not in the realm of science and technology. There are valid criticisms of religion, but criticizing religion for not being scientific is just silly.

Likewise, atheism may be entirely agreeable to scientific thought, but it is the scientific thought and not the atheism that creates progress and technology. Giving atheism credit for science and technology is equally silly.

All I'm saying is that science and religion have to be appreciated on their own merits. And if you just want to see the boobs, they appear at 3:20 into the video. ;-)

* I won't go into what religion offers and/or what it has accomplished, because that is a matter of individual beliefs, and your mileage may vary. I won't get into that argument.

[Hat Tip to One Good Move]

Coffee and Breast Size, the Saga Continues

 Improbable Research presents the latest in ongoing research on the link between Caffeine and Breast Shrikage. The real story is that in women that carry a certain allele (CYP1A2*1F, if i grok), caffeine plays a role in regulating a hormone associated with both breast size and cancer risk.

See Coffee and Breast Size at Improbable Research, or you can skip the fun and go straight the grounds of the matter (pdf).

[image from Improbable.com]

Deniers != Skeptics

Author David Brin has a nice essay up about the difference between Deniers and Skeptics of Human Generated Climate Change. Here's an intro:

Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

What factors would distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" - who has honest questions about the HGCC consensus - from members of a Denier Movement who think a winter snowstorm means there's ni net-warming of the planet?

Is such a distinction anything more than polemical trickery?

Well, in fact, it happens that I know some people who do qualify as climate change "skeptics." Several are fellow science fiction authors or engineers, and you can quickly tell that they are vigorous, contrary minds, motivated more by curiosity than partisan rigor. One who I could name is the famed physicist Freeman Dyson.

(In fact, if truth be told, there are some aspects of HGCC that I feel I want clarified -- that seem to be poorly-justified, so far. I am an ornery, contrarian question-asker, of the first water!)

After extensive discussions with such folk, I found a set of distinct characteristics that separate thoughtful Skeptics from your run of the mill, knee-jerk Denier dogma puppet.

Here's the first one:

The first, second, and last, can be found at Contrary Brin.

Lord of the Hadrons

Three Particles for the Heisenbergs under the sky,
Seven for the von Neumanns in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Schrödinger on his dark throne
In the Land of Dirac where the Strange lie.
One Particle to rule them all, One Particle to find them,
One Particle to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
To give them Mass where the Charms lie.

[Hat Tip to Sir Al Dente -- Thanks Al! (What a Looney!), and of course JRR Tolkien]

PS: Anyone else remember the Superconducting Super Collider?

The smell of asparagus

I like it when science and humor cross-pollinate, but sometimes it's even funnier when it's completely serious. You just can't make up stuff like this:

Br Med J  1980;281:1676-1678 (20 December),
doi:10.1136/bmj.281.6256.1676

A polymorphism of the ability to smell urinary metabolites of asparagus.

M Lison, S H Blondheim, R N Melmed

The urinary excretion of (an) odorous substance(s) after eating asparagus is not an inborn error of metabolism as has been supposed. The detection of the odour constitutes a specific smell hypersensitivity. Those who could smell the odour in their own urine could all smell it in the urine of anyone who had eaten asparagus, whether or not that person was able to smell it himself. Thresholds for detecting the odour appeared to be bimodal in distribution, with 10% of 307 subjects tested able to smell it at high dilutions, suggesting a genetically determined specific hypersensitivity.

Discoblog has a longer exposition on the topic:

NCBI ROFL: Asparagus, urine, farts, and Benjamin Franklin (Part I)

Dipping my toes into the turbid waters of AGW

This is an appeal to my readers and fellow bloggers for some advice. I've already pitched this to two prominent bloggers I occasionally correspond with, but I don't have direct contact with everyone I'd like to poll via email or Facebook, so this is my open call for responses. I would like your opinions, in a Science blogger/Dear Abby sort of way, and anyone else that is likely to read this is welcome to chip in too.

A friend has asked me to participate in a blog/project to conduct an open source attempt to replicate some climate modeling results. This is likely to be an amateur effort at best, but the stated intention is to educate about what really goes into climate modeling. Now I believe my friend to be a reasonable sort of skeptic, but it turns out he has some connections with people like Steve McIntyre and Eric Raymond. This gives me some concern, and I am leery of getting involved in anything that even gives the appearance of supporting the AGW deniers.

Oh yeah, AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming, if you didn't know already.


I would appreciate your opinions on whether I should become involved, or stay the hell away from it.

Some other information relevant to my participation:

1.  I have a good mathematics and statistics background, and did some relevant modeling of physical processes (hydrology) in grad school, but have no background in climate science.
2. I really haven't been following the AGW debate past some casual reading, but not being caught up in the old arguments might be a good thing.
3. I believe the scientific reports and news that AGW is real. I do have a some of skeptical thoughts about the extent of climate change the models predict, but even a small change is a valid cause for serious concern. I am concerned.
   
4. I think this might actually be a valid and useful educational effort, and I'm pretty sure I could make some good contributions.
5. I need another blog to write for like I need another hole in my head. ;-)

One friend already commented to me ...

"Not to discourage you from having fun, but there are a plethora of people stepping into the debate without sufficient preparation."

Another, who is self-described as very conservative, encourages me to go for it.

[Images Wikipedia, downloaded 12/12/2009]