On the Size of Things

I want to share a video by the youTube user AndromedasWake on the scales of the universe that I found quite enjoyable.

Here is his channel if you’re interested. He has quite a few videos on cosmology that are well worth watching.

Happy Canada Day!

First, I want to wish everyone a happy Canada day!

I also wanted to start compiling links to free online undergraduate lectures and materials.

1) MIT Open Courseware
2) Academic Earth
3) Berkeley Webcasts
4) Someone with a similar idea

If you know of more, please leave a comment and I will add them to the list

Baby Orchestra

This has to be the strangest thing I have seen today and it is awesome. I have no idea who is responsible for it but if you do, please let me know so I can credit them.

The Pope is Ignorant When It Comes To HIV Prevention

Two weeks ago the Pope made some dangerously misleading statements about the role of condoms in HIV prevention. He has stated, under no uncertain terms, that condoms are not only ineffective in preventing the spread of the virus but that they will actually make the situation worse. I am not sure what his reasoning behind this statement is but I suspect it’s something along the lines of “condoms will encourage people to have sex, therefore increasing the rate of infection” or something equally inane.

Clearly the Bishop of Rome is unaware of the numerous scientific studies (for example, see the recently reprinted meta analysis conducted by Weller and Davis-Beaty [1]) on the effectiveness of condoms in HIV prevention. In every case, such studies have concluded that condom use reduces the risk of infection by 90% to 98%. This is unambiguous evidence that condom use reduces the rate of infection. Furthermore, statistics clearly show that the availability of condoms has little impact on the rate of sexual activity. Condoms don’t increase the rate of sexual activity; they increase the rate safe sexual activity. The stupidity of the Popes comments is staggering but they are also dangerous. Just consider the number of christian missionaries in Africa that will be putting his words into practice.

But the case for condoms is even more of a no-brainer. Not only will they effectively prevent the suffering of millions but they will do so at a faction of the cost of treatment. Issuing condoms to nations like Africa is orders of magnitude lower in cost than that of providing the antiretroviral drugs used to treat the disease. At 2.5 cents a unit, the annual cost of supplying condoms to africa is estimated at $47.5 million [2]. The cost of antiretrovirals for the 33 million presently infected with HIV is $92 per year for a total annual cost of approximately 3 billion [3,4]. This is a cost that will only increase as the rate of infection inevitably increases.

At best Pope Benedict XVI is ignorant of the studies that have been conducted to date on this issue. One would hope that a high profile community leader would educate himself in the facts of a situation before commenting. However it’s more likely the case that his holiness is willfully distorting the facts in order to propagate the church’s agenda. Although it’s not surprising to see a holy man misrepresenting scientific findings, not all members of the church are guilty of it. South African Bishop Kevin Dowling publicly supports condom use and you can find an interview with him on the matter here.

[1] Susan C. Weller and Karen Davis-Beaty “Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission (Review).” The Cochrane Collaboration (2009). Available at, http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
[2] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7305/139
[3] http://www.avert.org/drugtreatment.htm
[4] http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

An interview with Darren Brown by Richard Dawkins

I have started writing up the first draft of my thesis and so my time over the next while will be limited. Actually, that is a lie. I find the prospect of joining the real world frightening and procrastination will be the likely course of action. So, in that spirit, here are some interesting videos.

This is a 6 part uncut interview with Darren Brown conducted by the king of the atheists Richard Dawkins. Brown is a British magician and mentalist and his shows, Trick of the Mind and Trick or Treat are great. One of my favorite tricks involves convincing an unsuspecting pub patron into believing they were in a full on zombie shoot em up game
. (Since it was done on TV you can never be sure of how much was staged and how much was legitimate. But the illusion is nice.)

I also find it cool that a lot of the mental trickery that Brown employs are similar to the methods used by members of the pick-up artist community. The human brain appears to have evolved in such a way that it has very predictable responses to whole categories of stimuli.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

Pope sends Holy Lube to L’Aquila

A friend of mine texted me this morning from England to tell me that the Pope was sending blessed oil to the earthquake victims in Italy this week. After confirming the story online I couldn’t help but feel like it’s nothing more than an empty jester – As my friend put it in his morning text, “what they really need right now is fancy lube.”

The oil is apparently a tradition in the week leading up to Easter and the Pope is sending it to L’Aquila in an effort to help gather the faithful. The region has been devastated and the death toll is nearing 300. They are going to be rebuilding for a while and the lack of infrastructure means delays in real necessities. Why can’t the Vatican reach into it’s pockets and send some financial aid, send something that will actually do some measurable amount of good? I am sure Pope has considerable financial resources available to make a meaningful contribution to the rescue efforts in Italy.

Popular Physics: Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics

An interesting article appeared in the popular physics section of the archive last week. It’s a quantitative discussion about the amount of entropy produced in the sun/earth system and the entropy reduction associated with the process of evolution. It’s a fairly light read and is pretty accessible (but you might want Wikipedia by your side if you never took thermodynamics in University).

E. F. Bunn, “Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics” arXiv:0903.4603 (2009)

Canadian Science Minister is Scientifically Illiterate

This was brought to my attention by a friend of mine back home. The Harper government has been slashing science funding anywhere it can and now our conservative Science minister basically comes out against evolution. I have to say, at times like this I am somewhat embarrassed to be a Canadian.

Source: The Global and Mail

ANNE MCILROY

From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail

March 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM EDT

Canada’s science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won’t say if he believes in evolution.

“I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.

Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.

When asked about those rumours, Mr. Goodyear said such conversations are not worth having.

“Obviously, I have a background that supports the fact I have read the science on muscle physiology and neural chemistry,” said the minister, who took chemistry and physics courses as an undergraduate at the University of Waterloo.

“I do believe that just because you can’t see it under a microscope doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It could mean we don’t have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I’m not fussy on this business that we already know everything. … I think we need to recognize that we don’t know.”

Asked to clarify if he was talking about the role of a creator, Mr. Goodyear said that the interview was getting off topic.

Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was shocked by the minister’s comments.

Evolution is a scientific fact, Dr. Alters said, and the foundation of modern biology, genetics and paleontology. It is taught at universities and accepted by many of the world’s major religions, he said.

“It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?’ and he doesn’t answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”

Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution.

“The traditions of science and the reliance on testable and provable knowledge has served us well for several hundred years and have been the basis for most of our advancement. It is inconceivable that a government would have a minister of science that rejects the basis of scientific discovery and traditions,” he said.

Mr. Goodyear’s evasive answers on evolution are unlikely to reassure the scientists who are skeptical about him, and they bolster the notion that there is a divide between the minister and the research community.

Many scientists fear 10 years of gains will be wiped out by a government that doesn’t understand the importance of basic, curiosity-driven research, which history shows leads to the big discoveries. They worry Canada’s best will decamp for the United States, where President Barack Obama has put $10-billion (U.S) into medical research as part of his plan to stimulate economic growth.

But in the interview, Mr. Goodyear defended his government’s approach and the January budget, and said it stacks up well when compared to what Mr. Obama is doing.

He also talked about how passionate he is about science and technology – including basic research – and how his life before politics shaped his views.

Now 51, Mr. Goodyear grew up in Cambridge. His parents divorced when he was young. His father was a labourer, his mother a seamstress who worked three jobs to the support her three children.

His first summer job was laying asphalt when he was 12. At 13, he got a part-time job at a garage, pumping gas. At 17, the young entrepreneur started his own company selling asphalt and sealants.

He was in the technical stream at high school, taking welding and automotive mechanics. No one in has family had ever gone to university, but he secretly started taking academic credits at night school so he could get admitted to the University of Waterloo. He didn’t want his family to know.

He took chemistry, physics, statistics and kinesiology, and was fascinated by the mechanics of human joints. After three years of university, he was admitted to the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, where he was class president and valedictorian.

He had his own practice in Cambridge, where he settled down with his wife Valerie. He worked as chiropractor for two decades, and set up private clinics to treat people who had been injured in car accidents, sometimes using devices that he invented to help them rebuild their strength and range of motion.

He had sold that business when, before the 2004 federal election, a friend approached him about running for the Conservative nomination in Cambridge. His two children were then in their late teens, so he agreed. He took the nomination and won the seat. He was re-elected in 2006, and again in 2008, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper named him science minister.

“Now I have got a portfolio that I am absolutely passionate about and frankly connected to,” he said, adding that his days of experimenting with engines in high school automotive class gave him an appreciation for what it feels like to come up with something new.

“When I was in high school, we were already tweaking with a coil that would wrap around the upper [radiator] hose and it got an extra five miles to the gallon. … So I’ve been there on this discovery stuff.”

Commercializing research – the focus of the government’s science and technology policy – is an area where Canada needs to make improvements, he says.

“If we are going to be serious about saving lives and improving life around this planet, if we are serious about helping the environment, then we are going to have to get some of these technologies out of the labs onto the factory floors. Made. Produced. Sold. And that is going to fulfill that talk. So yes, we have to do all of it, we have to do discovery … but it can’t end there.”

Conservatives to cut NSERC funding in Canada.

The Canadian government, under the leadership of the Harper Conservatives, are trying to cut the levels of NSERC (National Sciences and Engineering Research Counsel) at the Masters level. They plan to reduce the maximum time a masters level student can hold the award to a single year and the new limitations will start with the 2009 competition.

The NSERC awards are intended grant promising students the means to pursue ambitious research plans. The award provides enough money to cover tuition and living expenses allowing the student to focus on research rather than making ends meat through Teaching Assistant fellowships or part time employment. In times like these we should be striving to maintain our scientific and engineering work force and we should be fostering innovation. Cutting the NSERC funding undermines both of these goals.

I would like to encourage you to write your premier and encourage them to reconsider this move.

In Response to Rob pt 2: The Wisdom of Webster!

This is the second of a series of posts I am writing in response to some comments left here recently. If you are coming to this post first, please see my previous post for a summary of what this is about.

Rob’s second set of quotes really amused me. They were a series of statements by Noah Webster, the man responsible for common dictionary, on the moral obligations of society to the Christian God. There isn’t much to refute here as the quotes essentially boil down to nothing more than a series of unsupported statements.

“The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]

I actually find this quote somewhat insulting and don’t understand how this was supposed to make me see the error of my ways. The entire thing depends on the assertion that the Christian faith is actually correct – something which I clearly don’t accept. I also find it quite ironic that Webster is claiming that freedom can only be secured by the Christian teachings. What about freedom of religion? Are people not free to worship as they please? Even casting aside the notion of freedom from religion, the Christian faith is far from freedom. If you do any number of things against God, including not worshiping him, you are doomed to an eternity in hell. You can spout all you want about notions of free will, but anything that is imposed by the threat of punishment for eternity cannot be considered a freely made choice.

Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]

I certainly agree that we are responsible for choosing our leaders with care. But this has nothing to do with God. In fact, I would argue that choosing religions leaders has landed a lot of countries in a lot of trouble.

“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]

This is nothing more than an unsupported assertion on Webster’s part. If you want to put some weight behind this statement then you must demonstrate that societies that take Christian values experience lower rates of crimes, oppression, slavery or war. A lot of the statistics I have seen over the years suggest just the opposite in terms of crime but the evidence is by no means conclusive. This is the sort of statement you could easily backup with good statistics but no apologist seems to be able to do so.

“The Bible was America’s basic textbook in all fields.” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]

Really? Unless I were in a religious studies class, I would reach for hundreds of other books before going to the bible for any information. The bible contains about as much scientific accuracy or levels of morality as you would expect from any book written by a tribal society. This is clearly not something you will turn to as a text if you are actually interested in determining some level of truth. But I guess Webster did say “was”, so in that case, thank God for progress.