Since I follow a lot of blogs and news-services online, I thought I’d share some of the better posts from time to time. So here goes part I.

Fan Service: On Losing Patience for Women Kissing
Talking about the Star Trek Deep Space Nine (one of my favourite TV-series) episode Rejoined where a female main character kisses another woman. These characters are of a race called Trill, who live in a symbiosis with a humanoid host. The story here goes that they used to be married in an earlier host or “life” and now meet again. This was a setting that allowed for a controversial scene at the time (1995)—two women kissing on TV. The blogpost makes some reflections on the topic.
Reposted from Skepchick.

Gender Gap Vanishes in Female-Empowered Cultures
Another topic that I have read a bit about lately … and watched a few BBC documentaries on. The biological difference between the brain of men and women. Interesting research showing that the differences may be even less “biological” than we’d think.
Reposted from Skepchick.

Quantum computer chips pass key milestones
So for a technology update. The article describes a new design based on superconducting electrical circuits as a competitor to current set-ups using photons or ions.
From NewScientist Physics & Math.

]]> http://blog.itsfortytwo.net/2011/09/in-the-news-part-i/feed/ 0 http://blog.itsfortytwo.net/2011/04/science-and-skepticism-part-1/ http://blog.itsfortytwo.net/2011/04/science-and-skepticism-part-1/#comments Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:03:47 +0000 Frank http://blog.itsfortytwo.net/?p=748 The Fine Art of Baloney Detection I have decided to write a few blog-posts on the topic of Science and Skepticism. I have recently been debating people from the alternative movement (read New Age) lately, and have a few thoughts …

Read more »

Dr. Phil Plait talks about how sceptics need to have in mind that winning the game is more important than scoring a cheap point. Sceptics sometimes makes it harder to get the message across by being too aggressive. He asks the question if sceptics actually are effective with their message. We are communicating a message people not necessarily want to hear, so the way we communicate is very important. Insults does not help. If there ever are to be a scepticism curriculum, this one should be a lecture.

Every now and then you run into one of those organic food enthusiasts. The organic food industry makes grand claims about more nutrition, less toxins and being environmentally friendly, and many people buy into it. Most of these claims are unsupported by scientific research, at least at the level such benefits are claimed.

I am not against making sure the food we eat is healthy, and I always like to support environmentally friendly initiatives, but this industry, in the same way as the cosmetics industry, has everything to gain to keep up its image in the general public. This is after all business as usual.

The alternative medicine industry are notorious liars, and the lies are usually easy to spot unless you either have invested interests in maintaining the lie, or are incredibly gullible. However the organic food industry is a bit trickier to handle. They have one thing in common with the cosmetic industry, the grand claims are exactly the claims we want to hear about the products we buy (and they have the price tag to go with it). Unfortunately it is hard for people in general to dive into the research, especially because most people don’t have much interest in scientific research even though it is often easily available online if you know how to separate it from the junk. Luckily there are people that do this work for us. I’ll provide some links at the end.

Nutrition and taste

One of the main claims the organic food industry makes is the claim that their produce is more nutritious. This is inconclusive if you look at the research, and by that I mean scientific research where proper methods are used like a proper statistical method, proper data and so on. Most of what you find out there does not qualify (see Dangour et al., 2009). The argument I often hear by people is that organic fertilizer is better for the plants because it is more natural. However as a physicist I know that a molecule or atom is exactly the same regardless of what source it comes from. This argument represent a view that is simplistic and reeks if mysticism, just like most claims made in alternative medicine. Yes, the nutrition content of the produce depends on the availability of nutrition to the plant, but saying the organic farming principles are the sole reason for an increase in nutrition is a bit like claiming a red Ferrari is faster than a blue Lada because the Ferrari is red.

It is also often claimed that organic food taste better. Problem with this argument is that anyone at any time can pick two pieces of fruit, and they can taste differently. It is also well documented that our senses are linked together, and taste is a complex experience influenced greatly by vision, smell, our expectation and even hearing. Quite often people will pick conventional grown food as better tasting because they are usually from better kinds of crops. Another silly idea of the organic food industry is that they often use “older” variations of the plants as it is supposed to be “natural”. But the bulk of the food we eat come from plants and animals that have been genetically manipulated through several millennia with farming and selective breeding. None of them exist in nature.

Toxicity

Another common claim is that the lack of pesticides makes the food less toxic. Well, it is shown that organic food contain less pesticide residue (obviously), but the definition of “toxic” is as much about concentration as it is about the chemicals. There are regulations in place to ensure the content of pesticide is well below toxic levels, so “toxic” is an abused buzzword more than anything. In addition, the plants we eat have evolved defence mechanisms themselves which are natural pesticides. These are also potentially toxic. They are produced on demand to an extent, and are sometimes made in organic food in larger quantities than in conventionally grown food. In addition, the natural pesticides are the dominant pesticides in our food by a fairly large margin. Another point is that food with less added preservatives spoil faster, so products made from organic food can be less safe, a point that counterbalance the pesticide argument. Apparently organic food is  for instance not supposed to be exposed to ionizing radiation either (which is used to kill of micro organisms). The public’s irrational fear of the word radiation in all forms never seize to amaze me. It is another thing that most people don’t understand, but that’s another rant altogether.

Over all, the risk aspect of the organic versus conventional food is complex, and does not consistently favour organic or conventional methods. In addition, and maybe most importantly, the risk is marginal and near non-existent! These arguments does, in my opinion, in no way justify the increased price. And the claims often made indicates to me that the motivation is financial rather than a concern for public health.

Environmental considerations

There is evidence that organic food production is sometimes more environmentally friendly, however this is not always the case, and the methods used to reduce environmental impact are not exclusively connected to organic production methods. Many traditional farming methods, that also have been incorporated into organic production, are also used in conventional food production. One issue with organic farming is that the use of natural fertiliser is not free of environmental impact, both due to the fact they’re less efficient and thus are used in larger quantities, and the fact that they contain roughly the same chemicals as artificial fertiliser simply because those are the chemicals the plants need. Run-off is an issue regardless of method. This is in any case a more complex issue. Policies regarding environmental impact should be applied to all farming, and many places they are. It is commendable that the organic food industry apply some on their own, but this does not way up for the mumbo-jumbo.

In addition, there is the issue of production efficiency and the general availability of food worldwide. Organic food is in my opinion mostly a symptom of the rich west and our collective fascination with hypes and trends and new ideas. Food production is also a political and ethical issue. The focus should be on a balance between environmental considerations and worldwide food availability. The western commercialism aspect of the organic food industry as well as the fact that they walk a fine line when it comes to their claims and their ability to back these up, is enough for me to be suspicious and ultimately avoid these products.

Some Resources

• Dangour et al., 2009, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
  Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review
• Giles J, 2004
  Organic FAQ (Question 2: Is organic food better for us?)
• Grinder-Pedersen L, et al, 2003
  Effect of diets based on foods from conventional versus organic production on intake and excretion of flavonoids and markers of antioxidative defense in humans.
• Caris-Veyrat C, et al, 2004
  Influence of organic vs. conventional agricultural practice on the antioxidant microconstituent content of tomatoes and derived purees; consequences on antioxidant plasma status in humans.
• Leclerc J, et al, 1992
  Vitamin and mineral contents of carrot and celeriac grown under mineral or organic fertilization.
• Chen MC, 2005
  Organic fruits and vegetables: potential health benefits and risks

Related links:

• Organic Food Quality, Neurologica Blog

(Updated 27.02.2011)

Sam Harris has made an excellent albeit a bit short TED talk about science and moral questions:

He naturally got a lot of negative critique for this talk. He is not claiming that science can dictate morals exactly, what he is saying is that there are moral truths to be known.  The fact that science has no complete explanation for reality, does not prevent the existence of scientific truths, as does not the lack of a scientific model for morals prevent there from being any moral truths.

Sam Harris has posted a response to the critique here:
Moral confusion in the name of “science”

Yesterday a test run of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN produced the first collisions and collision data after 20 years of construction and preparations. They produced collisions in ATLAS, ALICE, CMS and LHCb. The beam was running at injection energy, so no acceleration. Next steps will be to crank up the power. This is looking promising so far, and I hope it all runs well. People were really excited here at the Institute of Physics in Oslo yesterday when they followed the unexpected test run online. Too bad I wasn’t there myself at the time, so I didn’t get to see the live feed.

Full CERN Press Release: press.web.cern.ch

This excellent YouTube video takes care of the accusation we sceptics often has thrown after us that we need to be more open-minded. This always bugs me because my inquisitive mind is very open to new ideas. I’ve spent most of this year learning quantum physics for fucks sake. Being open-minded is however not the same as naivety…

Enjoy the video

A talk by physicist Steven Weinberg. It is well worth the listen.

“Steven Weinberg, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin, where he founded its Theory Group and holds the Josey Regental Chair of Science, was awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics with colleagues Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow for combining electromagnetism and the weak force into electroweak force. He has written several popular books including the prize-winning The First Three Minutes, The Discovery of Subatomic Particles, and Dreams of a Final Theory.”

The Bible Unearhed is a book written by the archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. It covers the historical parts of the old testament of the Bible and how it fits into the picture archaeology in the Middle East paints of its ancient history. Not surprisingly it turns out that most of the early writings are largely mythical and little is verified by actual findings. I am not talking about the supernatural claims, but the actual people and claimed events. There is absolutely nothing to back up the Genesis version of early history, nor the conquest of Canaan or the magnificent first kingdom of Solomon and David. Actually facts contradict and outright disprove these stories in many of their details.

Still, the authors are not hostile towards the biblical texts. They are not attepting to have a go at the Bible, they are instead investigating the archaeological facts rather objectively, and tieing it into the biblical account where it fits. The book also attempts to give us some insight as to why the biblical texts were written and what the motives may have been. The political situation at the time the old testament was compiled was such that history needed to be adapted to current theology both for political and religious reasons. Which is not surprising. It is after all how religions develop, and why should this one be any different just because our western civilisation is so influenced by it?

The book is structured into three parts. The first part investigate the early history of the Bible and how the patriarchs fit into the archaeological reality. The second and third part covers the two kingdoms, Israel (Northern Kingdom) and Juda (Judea), and gives us the real story of how the rose and fell and how they fit into the history of the region. Much religious propaganda needs to be filtered out in the biblical account.

For those interested in the history behind Christianity and Judaism, this book is a must read. The book was a bit tricky to get hold of though.

This is an interesting video of a lecture by Professor Robert Sapolsky, anthropologist at Stanford.
It explores some of the evolutionary reasons behind religion.

Source: blip.tv/file/2204956