SGU Episode 185
|
This episode is in the middle of being transcribed by Gugarte (talk) as of {{{date}}}. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this episode while this message is displayed. |
| SGU Episode 185 |
|---|
| 4th February 2009 |
 |
| (brief caption for the episode icon) |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
R: Rebecca Watson |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
| Links |
| SGU Podcast archive |
| SGU Forum |
Introduction
You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wed. Feb. 4th 2009 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella …
B: Hey everybody.
S: Rebecca Watson …
R: Hello everyone.
S: Jay Novella …
J: Hey guys.
S: and Evan Bernstein.
This Day in Skepticism (0:30)
E: And a very happy Across the Universe day to everyone today.
S: Across the Universe day …
R: Is it National Beatles' Day?
E: Not quite, not quite …
J: It's a good guess.
E: so on this day last year, just last year, NASA transmitted Across the Universe, the Beatles song, as you alluded to, Rebecca, in the direction of the star Polaris, which is 431 light years from Earth.
R: Hah!
S: Cool!
R: I would have gone with the Rolling Stones.
E: It was done to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the song's recording and the 45th anniversary of the deep space network, and, of course, the 50th anniversary of NASA, which was last year. So it marks several occasions all in one. Across the universe.
J: That's a very cool way to celebrate it.
E: I think so and the people in Polaris will appreciate it 430 years from now.
News Items
Singularity University (1:16)
S: So Bob, you're going to tell us about some interesting news from Google and NASA called the Singularity University. Tell us about that.
B: Yeah, that got my attention, NASA and Google, Inc. teaming up with scientists, especially futurist Ray Kurzweil, to create something called the Singularity University. This official announcement was made recently at the annual TED or Technology, Entertainment, and Design conference in Long Beach, California. Now the term singularity in this context does not refer to a black hole but the increasingly popular idea that technological change feeds on itself, accelerating beyond what intuition might tell us. This could create game changing technologies in industries, not in many generations but maybe in less than one generation and it is this idea advocated by Ray Kurzweil in his book "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology." That book is what gave Dr. Peter Diamandis the idea for this university. He is the founder and chairman of the X-Prize Foundation and also co-founded the International Space University. So what is this university going to do and why do I want to go there so bad? If you go to their website: singularity-university.org, their mission statement says that the Singularity University aims to assemble, educate, and inspire a cadre of leaders who will strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies and apply focus and guide these tools to address humanity's grand challenges. Executive Director Salim Ismail describes it this way. He says what we are trying to do is create a group of young leaders that can understand the implications of the rapid acceleration that's happening in a lot of technologies today and manage that technology. It's not going to be cheap. It's $25,000 for one of their summer 9-week courses.
S: Why so expensive? I mean, did they justify that?
B: It's quite a unique experiment. I'm not sure why it's quite that much.
S: Is it the prestige or is it really some high tech stuff going?
B: Oh yeah, it is. Well, by definition, it's about as high tech as it gets. The first ... it's split into three 3-week sessions. The first one, the students will be diving into things like biotechnology, computing, artificial intelligence, energy, even law and finance. Then for the next 3 weeks, I think the students will pick one of those, for a really deep exploration. One of those key fields it will take ... so maybe if you already are an artificial intelligence guy, maybe you may want to look deep into, say, biotechnology or energy or something else. And then the last 3 weeks ... now that's the special part of it. This is where the students work on a special project. This is the part that was strongly advocated by Google co-founder Larry Page and in this ... for the special project, the students take a cross disciplinary approach and apply what they've learned to things like energy shortages, famine, global warming, climate change, poverty. One person describes this thing as imagine looking at hunger from an AI robotics stand point. So the idea is to foster this cross disciplinary approach and network with other people and other fields throughout the world and it's not just grads and post-grads that can go to this thing. They are also going to offer 10-day and 3-day seminars that's held throughout the year for top executives and things like that. I'm excited about this. I see these technologies coming down the pipe that people aren't even aware of.
S: Yeah, it's an interesting idea. I mean, the press release says they are going to focus on nanotechnology, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence. And those are the 3 technologies that Kurzweil argues in his book, The Singularity is Near, that are going to really cause the singularity because those are the ones that will essentially make all technologies information based and when a technology's information based, he argues, that's when we see this exponential increase in advancement.
B: Yeah, those and other ones. It's not just going to be them but they're definitely going to be a huge part of it.
S: Yeah, an interesting thing about information is that ... information and ideas is not a zero sum game, it's a win-win and this kind of cross fertilization leads to unforeseeable consequences. You know, meaning unforeseeable benefits. The kind of new ideas that gets spun out of this kind of think tanks have tremendous potential. It's also interesting that Kurzweil remains such a controversial figure. He is kind of like the Nikola Tesla of our age in that he is undeniably brilliant in some ways and has achieved some real ...
B: Oh inventions, the guy's an amazing inventor. I mean, some of the things he's come out with ... he was the first to come out with a book that you just ... you put the book on this optical reader and it turns the pages and reads the book. I think that Stevie Wonder was like the first one years ago to buy this device and now this device is like ... you can like almost fit in your pocket, it's so tiny. It's just one of the predictions he's made that's come true and, yeah, it is controversial and I think he's primarily controversial because the whole accelerating changes idea and how fast he thinks it's gonna come upon us ...
S: He is at the optimistic end of the spectrum in terms of projecting forward but I don't ... that's not the most controversial thing about him in my opinion. I think it's the fact that he's been ... he takes something like 230 different supplements that he believes is going to make him live a lot longer, long enough so that ... you live long enough to become immortal. Right? That's his goal and that's ... you know, it's interesting, because that's pure pseudoscience. That is ... there's no evidence behind those supplements. He's probably doing himself more harm than good by taking so much crap and he also sells it. It's not like he's just doing it personally. You can actually go to ... he's teamed up with someone else to actually ... he's selling the supplement regimen ... that's extremely dubious. You have this combination of brilliant inventor, really provocative thinker, and yet a total charlatan, sort of wrapped up into one figure and again that's why I'm thinking he has the sort of same feel to me as Nikola Tesla.
B: Yeah, I have not looked into that whole aspect of it and you're right it is very disconcerting and maybe I've purposely haven't looked into it because it's a very disappointing aspect of what, ah, but, ah, I don't think it necessarily detract ...
R: Oh yeah, that's why we value the ideas and not the person. I mean people are fallible. We see it again and again and again. You know and often times people will ask us like "What do you think of Bill Maher and don't you think he's a terrible skeptic" and that's like, well, that's not really the point. The point is, sure he says some crazy things, he says some rational things and the idea is to just keep focusing on the rational and promoting that while correcting the irrational.
S: Yeah, just like Linus Pauling. Brilliant scientist, spent the end of his life promoting utter quackery. You know, how do you reconcile those 2 things? Well, people are people. They were flawed.
J: Yeah, we've talked about people like this on the show before. I would look at Ray Kurzweil as a visionary and I think people that have that kind of personality, it's, you know, it's not unlikely for them to also have … they're thinking radically about a lot of different things.
S: Yeah, you're thinking outside the box, you know, not to overuse that cliché but it's true. You're thinking in very highly speculative provocative way and you're gonna be wrong a lot. You're gonna take a lot of chances, you're gonna be wrong a lot and that's okay. If you're right occasionally, that's probably more valuable than being wrong a lot because we can just … we can get past the errors. So, it's good to have people stirring up the pot like that … like Kurzweil.
J: You know, but keep in mind too, he's taking a lot of supplements, right, that's what Steve says?
S: Yeah.
J: Now that is not the craziest thing I've ever heard, you know.
S: No, it's just the, ah, the contrast with his … the fact that he's actually … has a lot of legitimate, ah, ideas as well.
J: Yeah but we're not saying that he's like thinking about things that are … even though that taking a lot of vitamins like you said, you know, there's a lot of controversy about that as well. You know it's not like an insane thing that he's doing. It's just, you know, to me it's more wishful thinking …
R: Well, no, it's a potentially harmful thing, though. Especially since, you know, he lends his name to give them credibility. I mean …
S: It's a bit kooky. The bottom line it's all a bit kooky …
J: And I've gotta tell you one more thing, this is yet again another example of me not like … I don't want to know that much about him like I've read his books, I'm fascinated by this guy's mind and I don't want to spoil, you know, it's like … it's like …
S: Well, you know, it doesn't spoil it to me because I'm interested in human nature, in human psychology and to me it's fascinating that he would combine these attributes and I wanna know why. What is it that … what is it about him that makes him both a kook when it comes to these supplements and a really provocative thinker when it comes to artificial intelligence and then futurist technology. That's what interests me. I don't wanna hide from that at all. I think this, ah … we have something that we can learn about the nature of people, of science, of ourselves, of skepticism, by thinking about people like Ray Kurzweil, people who are not typical, you know, the typical true believer, you know, who's gullible over just about everything and the typical skeptic who's largely skeptical about most things. Yeah, we sort of got those characters down pretty well but then you have somebody who breaks the mold like Kurzweil and it's fascinating.
J: Yeah, I guess you're right. This is actually very different than say, ah, Christian Bale, like totally loosing his stuff on the set.
S: Haa :-)
E: No.
R: 'Cause you expect that of him.
J: You're right Steve. This is ...
S: Yeah.
J: it's more of like … ah … analyzing his character and seeing like where his mind takes him.
B: Well, I think we should ask him when we finally get him on this damn show. So, let's ah …
S: We do need to get him on the show. We'll make that our project.
R: Get on that will you.
Archaeology of the New World (11:20)
S: Let's go on to the next news item. This is a follow up story. We have spoken a few times in the past about the archaeology of the New World of the Americas and, if you remember, the Clovis people who are the remains of the first human settlements in the Americas and they disappeared around 13,000 years ago around the same time that a lot of the megafauna of the New World also disappeared. I think the last news item we discussed about this was evidence for a large comet explosion over Canada and the thinking at the time was that this may have been responsible for the extinction of a lot of the megafauna of the New World as well as perhaps even the Clovis people. Well, now there's some follow up on that. This is a genuine controversy within the archaeological community and they're fighting it out as they should be with the evidence and now there was a new survey done of past fires. When there's a large forest fire, that leaves behind a telltale sign in the geological record. For example, there are bogs where the layers are preserved through time so you can go back and it's actually like a record of whenever fires occurred in the past and they can be dated pretty well. So, an extensive survey has just been published looking at this. If it is true, if it were true that a large comet exploding over Canada wiped out the mammoths, for example, this is a representative species of megafauna at the time then we would have expected there to be wildfires throughout the Americas at around the same time. That's a prediction of the comet theory of mammoth extinction, if you will. Well, this paper did not show that. It showed that there were scattered fires but there … at different times in different places but not this one continent wide fire that you would expect to see from a coment big and devastating enough to have created so many extinctions. So now this is sort of pushing back from the other side the other school of thought which does not believe in the comet theory and they are saying that the lines of evidence that the comet promoters are … have been putting forward are going to fall one by one and this is just the first one to go. So, I always find it fascinating to watch these genuine scientific controversies play out. They are trading punches with the evidence and it looks like they … this one is a definitely a notch against the comet theory but something that is certainly not settled and will have to wait for further evidence before, I think, a consensus emerges.
B: Wouldn't there have been world wide fires not just isolated to the Americas?
S: I don't think so. I mean, it's not … it wasn't a world wide extinction and it really was continent wide. So I think they're just looking for continent wide effects.
E: Yeah, the 1908 comet over in Siberia …
S: Yeah.
E: was more … I don't think that had a world wide impact.
S: Something between Tunguska and the whatever wiped out the dinosaurs, you know. So, still a very interesting mystery and there's definitely, there's some specific pieces of evidence that were looking for that we haven't found yet. You know, for example, we have sites with the technological remains with stone tools but no human feces or anything with DNA in it that we can type and we have other sites that have DNA but no tools. So, we're still waiting for that one site that has a Clovis tool and something that we can get DNA from and so that's … I'm waiting for the day when that get's announced, when that finding is made 'cause that will end a lot of the debate about what happened to the Clovis people. Did they completely go extinct or did they merge with a later immigration of people that then became the modern American Indians. So, very interesting.
The Smallest Exoplanet (15:17)
S: Another really interesting news item just from a couple of days ago and this one's on the exoplanet front. We have found yet …
R: It's the littlelest exoplanet.
S: That's right. Yet again the smallest …
E: and the cutest
S: exoplanet …
R: I think so.
S: It seems every week there's a new coolest exoplanet but, ah …
E: My prediction of 100 new exoplanets this year is probably on pace.
S: Do you know how many we've discovered so far?
J: 3
E: Let's see, ah, it's the 4th of Feb. … the first week of Feb. … ah … eight.
R: 40
E: Ha :-) I don't know for sure.
S: Do you know how many total exoplanets?
E: Oh, ah, that we've ever discovered?
S: Yeah.
B: It's over 300.
E: It's gotta be in the hundred … yes, it's in the hundreds, 300 about …
R: 400
S: 339
R: Ow
E: Yeah
R: I was close.
S: First one was discovered in 1995 - 51 Pegasi B, which is about 50 light years away.
E: A lovely place.
S: Yup, this new one is about 450 light years away and it is only twice as large as the Earth. The previous record holder for the smallest exoplanet was about 5 times the size of the Earth. This one is only twice. That means that it is probably a rocky world and not a gaseous world like Jupiter, just because of its size. It would be really difficult. There's also another reason why it's probably not gaseous because it's very very close to its sun. Do you guys know how long it takes for this planet to go around its star?
B: 20 hours?
S: Yeah, not 20 years, not 20 days, 20 hours …
B: Wow
E: That thing must be whipping around …
B: fast …
J: Steve, how big is that … the mass of that sun compared to our own?
S: It's a little smaller and cooler than our sun but 20 hours, that thing is like whippin' around the atmosphere of that star.
B: So, if we lived in that … if we lived in that planet, we could live for a thousand years.
S: Yeah :-)
E: … the gravity on that planet, suckin' you down …
S: Well, the tidal forces would be amazing.
E: Oh, forget about it.
S: Yeah, so the surface temperature is estimated at between 1,000 & 1,500 degrees …
B: Yeah, it's hot …
E: a little toasty
S: could be molten, yeah …
R: But it's a dry heat.
S: but it's a dry heat :-) … it's not … not a candidate for life but it's just … it's showing that we are … the techniques we're using now, the telescopes that we're using are capable of finding such a tiny little planet, only twice the size of Earth. Phil Plait thinks we're within a year or two of finding a truly earth sized planet.
E: That's great.
B: Wow
R: That's crazy talk.
E: There would be smaller ones even to find beyond that.
S: Right, but of course, you know, just for psychological reasons we want to find an earth sized planet that's about the Earth's distance from its star so that it would be at a distance where water would be in a liquid form and …
E: the nitrogen, oxygen, in the atmosphere
S: Yeah, well :-)
R: and populated with hot dudes
S: oxygen in the atmosphere would mean that there is most certainly life
J: Woo hoo
S: cool
E: very cool … exoplanets are cool
J: Yes, sir.
Blood Types (18:22)
S: Evan, you are going to give us an updated report on the Japanese craze over blood type.
E: Well, there was a report in the Associated Press this week, which states, in the year just ended 2008, 4 of Japan's top ten best selling books were about how blood type determines personality. Yes, you heard it right.
S: They were named A, B, AB, & O. There was a series of books. One book per blood type.
E: And they sold over 5 million copies.
R: of each?
E: combined in 2008 … if you can believe that. Now, what this amounts to frankly is nothing more than you get out of astrology, really.
S: It's astrology.
R: but bloodier … it's like zombie astrology
E: It sure is but it's very ingrained in the culture … very ingrained in the culture. For example, the prime minister, he considered it important enough to reveal his blood type profile on the web. He's an A and his rival opposition leader is a B and he was, you know, comparing the traits, I guess, between, well, what they claim the traits of people who have A blood type versus B blood type are.
S: Oh my god, it's just so absurd.
E: and, you know, it's crazy
B: It's annoying.
E: it's a wild concept. Yeah, you know and this … actually, what's even, I felt more annoying is, looking into this a little bit, is, in the history of it, is that, ah, you know, this was first, the idea of typing people based on blood type was really used in Nazi Germany to further their ideas of supremacy over different races and during the 1920s and the 1930s, this was also adopted by some people in Japan and there was a paper in 1927 that was published in Japan called The Study of Temperament Through Blood Type by Takeji Furukawa. It took off. It just became … it became a fad, really. That's what it was and … but the government took it seriously and they did some studies, some pretty bad studies in regards to breeding programs in how to, you know, maximize the potential for, you know, breeding people with more desirable blood types than others and, you know, total bonk, total nonsense and although it went away soon afterwards, it was revised again or revived again, I should say, in the 1970s. A fellow by the name of Masahiko Nomi, who was a lawyer, basically, decided to write books on the blood types. Just bring it back into the culture and thanks to him, ever since the 1970s, this craze has seeped into the Japanese culture and a lot, millions of people in Japan take it true to heart. They really really believe that personalities are determined by blood type.
S: Yeah, it's easy … it's no different than just the commonality of astrology in Western culture …
R: but it seems like they've taken it a bit more seriously because, you know, you wouldn't have Barak Obama accusing Hilary Clinton of being a Virgo or something and that's why she shouldn't lead, you know …
S: Yes.
R: It seems like it's much more serious if they're actually pulling it into politics and legitimizing it that way.
S: That's right and it also is striking, you know, to us, of course, it seems ridiculous … what, proteins in the blood are somehow gonna affect your personality? I mean that seems absurd and yet how many people believe that the position of the planets around the time of your birth has some magical effect on your personality …
J: You know there are people that believe that you should eat a particular diet depending on your blood type …
B: Oh yeah
J: Have you ever heard of that?
S: Yeah, we've talked about that …
R: Have we talked about that?
S: That's what we did talk about before was the sort of the blood type diet and things like that's utter nonsense but this is more sort of the astrological angle to it …
R: It's things like that that make me think that this isn't driven so much by a desire to discriminate against others but more along the lines of, ah, it's like this individual need people have to learn more about themselves some how and it kind of fulfills that need.
S: Yeah, I agree. I think we are ultimately egocentric and people like to hear things about themselves and confirmation bias kicks in.
E: Yeah
S: You know, you think, oh yeah, that does sound like me, you know. I am sometimes outgoing and at other times not so outgoing.
R: and there have been a few studies that have shown that when people are raised … I shouldn't say that have shown … that have suggested that people who are raised to understand what traits are associated with their, say, sun sign or their blood type or whatever, they actually do end up taking on those traits so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
E: You know, a couple of other ways for the folks in Japan that they take this very seriously is that, ah, match making. Match making agencies provide blood type compatibility tests, companies make decisions about assignments based on employees' blood type, children in kindergarten are divided up by blood type …
B: Wow
S: Can you imagine?
E: and the women's … talk about confirmation bias … and … women … the woman's soft ball team that won gold at the Beijing Olympics used the theory to customize each player's training …
S: Hmmm mmm
E: so, of course, it had to have worked otherwise they wouldn't have won the gold so therefore the blood typing and the routine … and the regimen must have worked …
R: We have a lot of expats listening to the show and I'm wondering if anybody living in Japan can report back to us and let us know whether or not that's all true because I always wonder when news reports come out of, ah, especially non-english speaking countries, whether or not things are a bit exagerated or anything.
S: That's a excellent point. Yeah, it's hard to get … you never really get a good insider's view of what's really going on from some, you know, mainstream press just reporting about it 'cause there's a lot of opportunity to distort what the real picture is.
E: We should note though that this writer from the Associated Press, ah, their name is Mar Yamaguchi. I would assume by the name that this is a Japanese person in Tokyo that is doing the report so that should be noted.
J: But could you imagine though … okay, going under the idea that what Evan said was accurate, could you imagine somebody sitting there and, by just somebody's blood type, coming up with an exercise program for an athlete. I wonder what parameters are altering to suit the athlete?
S: But that's like using hand writing analysis, which is very common in corporate culture in the United States.
E: Hmmm mmm
S: A lot of companies will do hand writing analysis on employee applications.
R: Yeah and of course there are personality tests that most of which are just rife with pseudoscience and a lot of companies use them, you know, as part of the interviewing process.
S: Right and it is an attempt at getting just cheap sense of control. It's like I want to apply this cheap and easy algorithm or system that will give me some sense that I have some control or knowledge over the situation. That's the appeal of it but, of course, it just gives you the illusion of control, which actually takes away your control because you're surrendering it to this pseudoscience and you're maybe allowing it to influence you rather than a more detailed or complete analysis of the person or rational analysis so it's ironic, you know, that the attempt to grab a sense of control actually causes you to surrender a little bit of it.
B: I hate it when that happens.
E: Haaa :-). That's such a type A thing to say Bob.
B: Ah, yeah.
E: I'm O negative. I'm the universal donor and I can only take …
S: You're a very giving person.
J: Well how about that rock band ABBA, you know, A B B A, I mean they are obviously following that.
S: Haa :-)
E: Was that their blood types? Collective blood types?
J: You can't prove it isn't.
E: Oh that's sweet.
(all laughing)
Questions and Emails (26:23)
S: Well let's go on to your email. The first email comes from Jason Smith in Bangkok, Thailand and Jason writes, "Hi guys, I've been concerned about a clever argument about how science makes valid testable predictions whereas non-science merely postdicts from time to time. Consider the assertion that recent scientific discoveries are conveniently postdicting old theories, which are preferred by the scientific establishment. For example, to be accepted, string theory must predict, in quotes, ordinary quantum mechanics and the standard model, however, Michio Kaku stated in your show that string theory has infinite solutions. Kaku can't loose. He can postdict whichever solution he needs or so called transitional fossils once discovered are conveniently placed where ever in the tree of life they are needed to support the theory of evolution. Of course, in practice some discoveries are made chronologically after all the evidence they predict has been collected. To accuse these scientists of foul play may sound quite reasonable although it is an argument from final consequences but the distinction can be quite subtle. I do not think this topic warrants a dedicated discussion but the next time the panel discusses a discovery which predicts already observed evidence perhaps it is worth identifying this distinction.
R: There was an astonishing number of dirty words hidden inside that email.
S: You think so?
R: I don't know if you noticed … Hmmm mmmm. I don't want to say them because …
S: You're just retrofitting. But actually I do think this is worth a dedicated because this is a … this comes up quite a bit and this is a … a really important insight into the difference between science and pseudoscience. Science really does require the ability to make predictions about information that does not already exist. Ahm, that doesn't mean, however, that that's all that science does. You know, in trying to understand nature and and to create theories, which, ahm, describe nature in a reliable and accurate way, the ability to predict future information is just one attribute. It also does have to be consistent with existing knowledge. In some of these examples like with string theory being compatible with what we already know from quantum mechanics and the standard model of particle physics, that's just not about prediction. ??? That statement's a non sequitur. The … It has to be compatible with it … in that … if it … if string theory requires that the standard model be something other than what we know it to be well it has to be wrong. That is confusing 2 different criteria of what makes a scientific theory legitimate.
B: Ah, yeah, I would think if it predicted everything we know then it would surely raise my confidence for any predictions of stuff that we don't know yet.
S: Right but you still need that that last bit. That, if this theory is true, it also, it also would predict something we do not yet know and then if that prediction comes true then that goes much farther in confirming a theory than just being compatible with existing evidence. The reason for that is that humans are very good at pattern recognition. We're very good at retrofitting, ah, ideas to existing facts. I remember I had a discussion with an astrologist once and they were very impressed with their ability to explain why some … you know there was a case of a, of a girl who killed, killed herself and this was, ah, a case that was, you know, in the newspapers and it was known in that area and he did, ??? you know … in retrospected an astrological chart and he was able, able to explain why she did what she did based upon her astrological chart. Well, of course, he was just retrofitting what he already knew happened and interpreting, you know, her astrological reading in order to fit, in order to fit what had been established already. What astrology doesn't do however is predict what's going to happen in the future. Now he brings up evolution as an example and evolution is actually an excellent example because evolutionary theory made tons of predictions. It predicted that there would be a mode of inheritance that would allow for the perpetuation of inherited characteristics without infinite dilution. Right? This was before genetics was discovered and evolution required something like genes to exist. A gene does not get infinitely diluted in the population. It actually can propagate through the population undiluted. Right? A single gene can … can be copied without change from … from parent to child and can spread throughout the population. So, that was actually a prediction of evolution. Evolution required that and it was later discovered. Ah, in terms of fossils, yeah, we're trying to piece these things together but there's lots of fossils that fit into what we, what evolution predicts must exist, at least in the broad brushstrokes. We knew that birds exist. That birds are most, you know, morphologically related to reptiles therefore evolutionary theory predicts that we're going to find fossil evidence of some animals that are somewhere in between birds and reptiles. That was a prediction of evolution. Evolution requires that we would find such fossils and then we did. We found Archaeopteryx and then a whole hosts of feathered dinosaurs. That was a confirmation of a prediction made by evolutionary theory.
B: Yeah Steve, you're saying how … that the, you know … the fossils, the transitional fossils were conveniently placed where ever in the tree of life they are needed to support the theory of evolution but, ah, I mean, going along with what you are saying it's, it's not where it was needed like, oh, here is a hole, let's throw it in here but it's where it was predicted to fit. So it's a little … it's a little more than just like, oh, here is a hole, let's put it in here.
S: Yeah. Exactly.
R: It's more like here's a puzzle piece hole that perfectly fits this puzzle piece I just found.
S: That, that's right, although, and this is where I think that the creationists exploit, ah, ah, a, what is, can be a subtle, ah, misunderstanding here, is that evolution predicts the broad brushstrokes. Like I said, it predicts that there will be something between reptiles and birds to connect these major groups but it doesn't predict the fine detail. It doesn't predict exactly what species evolved when and to which other species so we didn't know, for example, evolution doesn't require that birds evolve from dinosaurs. They could have evolved from some other reptile. So when we, when we find fossils, not only are we fitting the puzzle pieces into a, a, into a hole but remember, we don't know what the picture is ahead of time. We're also figuring out what the picture is as we go along and, therefore, that changes how we think about where the holes are and where the puzzle pieces should go if that makes sense. So …
R: You extended that metaphor beautifully.
S: Yeah, it's easy to exploit confusion about the broad brushstrokes of what evolution predicts or requires versus the fine details about what evolved into what, when, which, we, we … that we can only retrofit after we find the fossil and then, ah, you know, it's basically, ah, again like we, getting a new puzzle piece with a little bit of the picture together and that changes how we think about the, how the, how to draw the tree of evolutionary life.
Interview with Massimo Pigliucci (33:39)
S: Well, let's go on to our interview.
S: Joining us now is Professor Massimo Pigliucci. Massimo, welcome back to the skeptics guide.
M: It's a pleasure to be here.
S: And Massimo is a professor of ecology and evolution at the Stony Brook University. He is the author of several books including a 2006 "Making Sense of Evolution," in 2002 "Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science." He's also the author of a column for the Skeptical Inquirer and I know, ah, recently you started a blog called "Rationally Speaking" or not so recently but, of course, the most important thing to say is that you were the very first person to be interviewed on the now famous Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.
B: Ha ha :-).
M: Is that right? Wow.
S: That's right.
M: I should, I should mention that on my CV.
S: And it's only taken us 4 years to have you back.
M: That's right.
B: Ha ha :-).
S: I see you've been, you've been busy since we interviewed you last time. Of course, you have another, a new book out, ah, and you are also working on, oh, another book as well.
M: Yeah, this one should be out, ah, by the end of the year or early 2010. Ah, it is called, the provisional title is "Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk" and it's, ah, it's for general public. It's going to be published by University of Chicago Press. Ah, the idea is, of the book is to explore the difference between science, non-science, and pseudoscience. What, ah, philosophers often refer to as the demarcation problem.
S: Hmmm mmmm.
M: Where does start … ah, science start … and, and, and non-science or pseudoscience, ah, begin and, ah, in doing so, however, ah, it's a, it's not just a discussion of the usual suspects such as creationism, intelligent design, astrology, parapsychology, UFOlogy, and all the other 'ologies that, ah, one can think of, ah, but it also, ah, wanders into territory that is a little bit more complicated and probably more relevant to people's lives such as how science are present… is presented or misrepresented in the media. Ah, what is the role of science in politics and even in the court room?
S: Hmmm mmmm.
M: So it's, it's been a lot of fun to write and we're now in the final, final editing, ah, ah, stages and it should be coming out later this year.
S: Great and also, ah, you know, you talk about the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience and sure as skeptics … as skeptics we deal with a lot of this stuff way over to one end of that spectrum but there's a lot of things that are kind of in the middle, that are, that are not really easy to say on what side of the fence they fall on and so are there any topics in particular you cover in the book where you said, "gee this is kind of, you know, not really pure science or pseudoscience but somewhat right in the middle there?"
M: That's right. In a, in, in, in the, the so called, the … demarcation problem, when one, one phrases it that way, ah, the image that comes to mind is, is that of a line sort of dividing, sharply dividing science from non-science, ah, but, as you, as you said, that's not actually the case. There's a lot of gray areas in there and gray areas are, are actually interesting because those are fields of inquiry that, ah, may stay there and sort of limbo, ah, forever, you know, epistemological limbo forever, or may become actually mainstream science or they may turn definitely into, into the pseudoscience and, ah, the, the central part, part of the book deals exactly with those areas, some examples of those areas, and some of the, the things that I put there may surprise your listeners. For instance, ah, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, the SETI program. Ah, you know I'm a, a fan of the SETI program. I have a, their, you know, I've downloaded their, their screensaver that works …
S: SETI at home. Yeah.
M: That's right, SETI at home that does data analysis for them. So it's, ah, it's fun and it's, it's interesting and, of course, I wish them all the, the best, ah, luck in finding, ah, something out there but on the other hand, if one analyzes, ah, the SETI research program as science, it's a little bit wanting. You know, there's no theoretical structure or the only theoretical structure I could find there was the famous Drake equation that, ah, goes back into the, to the late 50s or early 60s, and which really doesn't tell us much in the, in the way of, you know, how do we look for, ah, extraterrestrial intelligence. It makes a lot of assumptions that are questionable such as that extraterrestrial intelligent beings, ah, are somehow interested in communicating, which is, you know, a simple projection of human psychology and, ah, it, it may sound natural to somebody who is a Star Trek fan, like I am, ah, but it's not necessarily indicative a, a, of, of a good scientific guess about what an in … an extraterrestrial intelligence could be. So I consider SETI sort of a borderline. Obviously, should they succeed, which may happen, you know, tomorrow, ah, then that would change dramatically the way in which we see ourselves in the universe and we definitely put them squarely into the realm of science but there is a very good chance that they will never succeed and there is also a very good argument that can be made that, that their hypothesis simply cannot really be tested in the long run.
|
|
|