Internet

A good day for science

The verdict in the Dover intelligent-design trial is in! To nobody’s surprise, it’s a rout.

HARRISBURG, Pa. – “Intelligent design” is “a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory” and cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he wrote in his 139-page opinion. “The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy,” Jones wrote, adding that several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs.

Judge Jones’s opinion is online (pdf); commentary from PZ and Ed Brayton. Overall, a huge, unambiguous win: not only were the creationists shot down, but their religious and anti-science agenda was made perfectly clear.

Not that the battles are over just yet. DarkSyde has an interview with Chris Mooney about his book The Republican War on Science. We have a long way to go, but it’s nice to win one decisively once in a while.

A good day for science Read More »

29 Comments

Bloggy B. Blog McBlog

It’s the time of the year when the liberal blogosphere takes a breather from waging the War on Christmas to pause and hand itself some awards. The Koufax awards, in particular — named after one of the greatest left-handed pitchers of all time. The reason for separate awards for the liberal blogosphere is simply that, a couple of years ago when blogs became popular enough to start giving awards to each other, the sphere as a whole had a decided rightward tilt, and conservative blogs would always win all the awards. Liberals have by now caught up, and the recent Weblog Awards witnessed lefty blogs dominating in all the interesting categories. But it’s still fun to pal around with our friends here in the attractive and friendly half of the blogosphere, so the Koufax awards are continuing to go strong.

The awards are run by the selfless folks at Wampum; anyone can submit nominations, just by visiting Wampum and looking for the most recent “Koufax nominations post.” Here are my own nominations. I am too shy and self-effacing to nominate CV for anything, although in principle we would fit into various categories: Best Blog, Best Expert, Best Group Blog, Best New Blog. (Nothing to stop anyone else from nominating us, I suppose.)

None of my entries for “Deserving wider recognition” have a snowball’s chance, with the possible exception of 3 Quarks; the others are just my idiosyncratic favorites. I largely agree with Ezra’s take on the whole affair; the winner is determined by who funnels in the most votes, not necessarily which blogs are actually the best. But it’s very fruitful to peruse the nominations, as you might uncover some hidden gems. The blogosphere is (happily) by now so large that there are just too many good blogs out there, and even those of us who read quite a few of them basically find some favorites and stick to them. I’m chagrined to see that I didn’t have any worthy nominations for the “Best New Blog” category. Feel free to make nominations in the comments.

Speaking of good blogging, you probably know that Daily Kos is the most popular blog on all the internets, with somewhere between 500,000 and a million hits per day. (We’re not at that level yet, but we’re young.) In addition to Kos himself, there are numerous diarists on the site, and every year a handful are chosen to be front-page posters. This year promises to see a significant uptick in the science content (!) of Daily Kos, as DarkSyde of Unscrewing the Inscrutable fame has been chosen as one of the front-pagers. He’s already instituted a “Science Friday” feature, and the first installment is a well-written tour through the powers of ten.

Finally, if you find all these blogs kind of overwhelming (and you don’t already use an RSS reader such as Bloglines), you can get a collection of physics blog content all in one place at Mixed States. I have mixed feelings about these things (although I use Bloglines myself) — on the one hand, it’s a vastly more efficient way to read multiple content sources; on the other, you lose the individual presentations of the sites themselves. It’s the wave of the future, though.

Bloggy B. Blog McBlog Read More »

14 Comments

Live-blogging from the lab

Hopefully Mark’s post explains why there hasn’t been much content from this occasional blog lately — at least three of us are distracted by the New Views symposium (about which I also hope to say something substantive soon). While you’re all waiting for our ungrounded speculations about the universe to return, why not cleanse the palate with some real experimental physics? Chad Orzel at Uncertain Principles has just completed a week’s worth of blogging about the work in his lab. Check out the entries to see the unpredictable hazards of hands-on research. (For a theorist like me, a typical unpredictable hazard is when the barista uses 2% instead of whole milk in my latte.)

Live-blogging from the lab Read More »

13 Comments

Expert testimony

I’m not sure whether it’s more accurate to describe my punditry as “fearless” or “shameless.” (This is just talking out loud, not a request for clarification.) Either way, I’ll be practicing it tonight on Milt Rosenberg’s show, a two-hour daily interview program here at Chicago’s WGN (720 on your AM dial). The other guests will be fellow Chicagoland bloggers Ezster Hargittai of Crooked Timber and Dan Drezner of the eponymous blog. We’ll be talking about — wait for it — blogging. As we are all academics, the view of the blogosphere we’ll be offering will doubtless be hopelessly narrow and unrepresentative, but fascinating nonetheless. Brief description of the show on Milt’s own blog, and you can listen live (9-11 p.m. Central) online here; it’s possible that it may be archived, I’m not sure.

I was on this show once before, several years ago, along with David Bodanis to talk about his book E=mc2. My role was that of an expert in relativity. It strikes me that it took well over a decade of professional training before anyone would think such a role was appropriate. Becoming an expert in blogging was much easier.

In other celebrity news, Peter Steinberg of Quantum Diaries was nice enough to describe me as a “physics super-blogger.” I have not yet decided whether this is damning by faint praise, or at least diminuition by modest association. The proximate cause of Peter’s description was the Einstein Conference we held last Saturday at the Francis W. Parker School, which turns out to be Peter’s old high school!
Sean Carroll and Angela Olinto
This is a photo of me and Angela Olinto at the panel discussion part of the symposium, snapped by Peter’s cell phone fancy digital camera and stolen from his flikr account by me. Angela is sporting her stylish spectacles while I am gamely trying to moderate our extremely distinguished panel (Angela, Michael Levi of the SNAP collaboration, string theorist Jim Gates, Argonne theorist Murray Peshkin, neutrino experimentalist and fellow Quantum Diarist Debbie Harris, and Fermilab Director Pier Oddone).

Some of you might not be very familiar with Quantum Diaries. It’s a wonderful idea to celebrate the World Year of Physics: grab some charismatic and energetic physicists and encourage them to blog for a year about what they’re doing. Sadly the year is almost over, but fortunately that means you can leaf through all the interesting entries that have accumulated. Other personal favorites include Caolionn O’Connell, Gordon Watts, and Stephon Alexander — but they’re all good! Who knew physicists were people, too?

Update: Eszter has a wrap-up of the Milt Rosenberg show — with pictures!

Further update: audio of segments of the Milt Rosenberg show is now available.

Expert testimony Read More »

7 Comments

Shadowing Members of Parliament

Those Brits come up with the wackiest ideas. Intrepid young cosmologist Andrew Jaffe, at Imperial College London, is participating in a fun scheme from the Royal Society: pairing members of Parliament with scientists, who will follow them around for a few days.

Sorry I’ve been so quiet this week: I’ve just finished participating in the Royal Society’s MP-Scientist Pairing Scheme. They’ve linked 25 youngish scientists from throughout the UK with a member of Parliament, and let us “shadow” them for much of this week (as well as giving us presentations on the way science and scientists interact with the UK Parliamentary system): attending meetings, watching debates, going to the bar, generally absorbing the chaos that goes along with politics and government.

Sounds like a blast. Although I suspect that “going to the bar” doesn’t result in any martinis being served. (Not that this would ever happen in Britain, anyway; a friend relates the story of being tossed out of a London pub for trying to order a martini. Too American, apparently.)

Shadowing Members of Parliament Read More »

13 Comments

It's not the blog

Nobody has ever accused me of being shy about talking to journalists. Not that I’m any sort of attention hound, mind you; I just consider it part of my civic duty to explain science blah blah blah. But in the last couple of days I’ve been fielding phone calls about a somewhat stickier topic.

Last week Daniel Drezner found out that he was denied tenure. For those of you who don’t know (and shame on you), Dan is a political scientist who has an informative and entertaining blog about international relations, monetary policy, things like that. He is also at the University of Chicago. The connection is that I have an informative and entertaining blog (yes, I mean this one, although at the time it was my previous one), and I am also at the University of Chicago, and I was also denied tenure. (Indeed, Dan has ruined one of my claims to fame, being the source of the only Google hit for “blogger denied tenure.”) Two points, as you know, determine a line, and there’s been a lot of conclusion-jumping going on: bloggers can’t get tenure, the UofC is biased against bloggers, etc. Stories have appeared in Inside Higher Ed as well as the New York Sun.

Blaming the UofC is just silly; anyone who thinks that there is some philosophical connection between the physics and political science departments doesn’t know how academia works very well. The blogging question is more interesting. I don’t have any real interest in hashing out the details of my own tenure case, but there’s a legitimate question for younger academics about whether or not blogging is a bad idea for your career. (We’ll put aside the obvious point that blogging under your own name and saying insulting things about your senior colleagues, or providing graphic details of your sex life, might be a bad idea, to concentrate on more academically-themed blogging.)

There’s a short answer and a long answer. The short answer is “No, it’s not blogging that prevents you from getting tenure; it’s because some people in your department (or the dean, or whatever) didn’t think that your research was good enough.” The blog was not a hot topic of discussion in my case, and I’m pretty sure that many of my colleagues don’t even know what a blog is, much less have a negative opinion of mine.

The longer answer must deal with the issue of why someone doesn’t think your research was good enough. (You might wonder whether teaching and various other forms of service are also relevant; at a top-tier research university like Chicago, the answer is simply “no,” and if anyone says differently they’re not being honest.) I think my own research was both solid and influential, and Dan’s looks pretty good from the perspective of a complete outsider; certainly neither of us had simply sat around for six years. But these are judgment calls, and a lot goes into that judgment. Like it or not, if you are very visibly spending a great deal of time doing things other than research, people might begin to wonder how devoted you are to the enterprise. To first order it doesn’t really matter whether that time is spent blogging or playing the banjo; some folks will think that you could have been spending that time doing research. (At second order it does matter; some people, smaller in number but undoubtedly there, feel resentful and jealous when one of their colleagues attains a certain public profile on the basis of outreach rather than research.) Of course nobody will ever say that they voted against giving tenure to someone because that person spent too much time on public outreach, or put too much effort into their teaching. But getting a reputation at being really good at that stuff could in principle make it harder to have your research accomplishments recognized — or not. It’s just impossible to tell, without access to powerful mind-reading rays that one can train on the brains of the senior faculty.

Blogging may very well be a contributor to this image of not being perfectly devoted — although, given the lack of familiarity with blogs on the part of most senior faculty, it’s very unlikely to be playing a major role. But even then it’s not blogging per se, it’s the decision to make an effort to communicate with the public. Blogging is just a technology, not a fundamentally new activity. It’s part of connecting to a wider audience, in ways that can be either serious or frivolous. Also, blogging may very well have a positive effect. It gets your name out there, and we can’t completely ignore the fact that some people (even senior faculty) really do appreciate the attempt to bring wider recognition to your academic discipline. It’s probably a wash, overall, although the positive or negative aspects could be important in certain individual cases.

Of course, it goes without saying that I personally think that connecting to a wider audience is an integral part of being a professor, not just a diverting sidelight. I don’t think that each individual academic must spend a lot of time on it (there are certain professors I would just as soon keep away from the public), but the field as a whole needs to take it seriously. Blogging is in an early stage of development, but it’s becoming a powerful tool indeed. As Michael Berube says, eventually the radical newness of blogging will evolve into familiarity. Then having a blog will be exactly as deleterious or advantagous to one’s career prospects as appearing on TV or writing op-eds for the New York Times — no more, no less. Some will embrace it with enthusiasm, and some will look down their noses at it. Hopefully, we embracers will march cheerfully forward, and use the new technology to make some sort of real difference.

It's not the blog Read More »

24 Comments

So much to blog, so little time

Things I would talk about at greater length and erudition if I were a man of independent means, rather than someone who supposedly works for a living. Also, today is my birthday; instructions on how to honor this auspicious occasion appear at the end of the post.

First, Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber has an eloquent article about academic blogging in this week’s Chronicle of Higher Education, “The Blogosphere as a Carnival of Ideas.” The final paragraph sums it up:

Both group blogs and the many hundreds of individual academic blogs that have been created in the last three years are pioneering something new and exciting. They’re the seeds of a collective conversation, which draws together different disciplines (sometimes through vigorous argument, sometimes through friendly interaction), which doesn’t reproduce traditional academic distinctions of privilege and rank, and which connects academic debates to a broader arena of public discussion. It’s not entirely surprising that academic blogs have provoked some fear and hostility; they represent a serious challenge to well-established patterns of behavior in the academy. Some academics view them as an unbecoming occupation for junior (and senior) scholars; in the words of Alex Halavais of the State University of New York at Buffalo, they seem “threatening to those who are established in academia, to financial interests, and to … well, decorum.” Not exactly dignified; a little undisciplined; carnivalesque. Sometimes signal, sometimes noise. But exactly because of this, they provide a kind of space for the exuberant debate of ideas, for connecting scholarship to the outside world, which we haven’t had for a long while. We should embrace them wholeheartedly.

This business about certain academics viewing blogs as an unbecoming occupation is more true that I’d like to admit (although it is far from universal). And it extends to all kinds of pretentions to public-intellectual engagement, not just our daily interventions on the internets. Which is why it’s important to emphasize that true scholarship entails two tasks, both equally crucial: discovering new things about the world, and letting people know what it is we have discovered. The first is called “research,” while the second is sufficiently undervalued that we don’t even have a good name for it. Part of it is “education,” part is “outreach,” part is engaging in public debate. But whatever you want to call it, it is just as important as research itself. You might say that, without research, there wouldn’t be anything to outreach about. True, but if we never told anyone what we had learned, there wouldn’t be any reason to do research, at least not in intellectually-driven fields like cosmology and history and literary criticism. It’s like asking whether, in baseball, the bat or the ball is more important. Without either, the whole thing becomes kind of pointless.

Next, Abhay Parekh at 3quarksdaily asks what it is that makes people disbelieve in evolution. He points the finger of blame at the “decent with random modification” part of natural selection:

My explanation is simply this: Human beings have a strong visceral reaction to disbelieve any theory which injects uncertainty or chance into their world view. They will cling to some other “explanation” of the facts which does not depend on chance until provided with absolutely incontrovertible proof to the contrary.

I’m sure that’s part of it, although I suspect the truth is a complicated mess that varies from person to person. Others chime in: Lindsay at Majikthise thinks it’s about disenchantment and an absence of meaning in purely naturalistic theories of the universe; Amanda at Pandagon chalks it up to a need to feel superior to other species; PZ at Pharyngula points to the psychological drive to be part of something bigger. I think all of these are likely part of it, and would add another ingredient to the cocktail: resentment at being told what to think by arrogant elites. When people use “local choice” as an excuse to allow school boards to decide to teach all sorts of nonsense, defenders of evolution generally treat it as simply a tactic to further their religious agenda. For the Discovery Institute et al. that is no doubt correct; but for people on the streets who are speaking at the school board meetings, I suspect a lot of it it really is about local choice. They don’t like to be told by some mutiple-degreed Ivy League east-coast intellectual types that they should think this and not that. There is a particularly American cast to this kind of resentment, which helps explain why this poor country is so much more backward about these issues than our peers in Europe.

Finally, speaking of Lindsay, she has recently embarked on quite an adventure: inspired by the experience of reporting on-location in the aftermath of Katrina, she’s quit her regular job to become a full-time stringer. But she needs some help at the early stages, so this week she’s asking for donations in turn for by-request blogging! This sort of bottom-up structure is alien to us here at Cosmic Variance, where we figure we’ll write about what we think is best and you’ll like it, or learn to. But it’s an interesting experiment. And while you have your PayPal account handy, you could drop by to Shakespeare’s Sister, who was recently hit by a double whammy when she was laid off from her job and had her property taxes increased by 100%. She’s one of the most passionate and articulate bloggers we have, and if you like what you read there, don’t be shy about dropping off a couple of bucks.

That would make me a good birthday present.

So much to blog, so little time Read More »

30 Comments

Faculty blogging

There are a lot of good science bloggers out there, but overall we are way behind other areas of academia in the realm of scholarly blogging. Social scientists and law professors, in particular — that is, disciplines that regularly interact strongly with the larger social context — seem to have taken to blogging more readily, including at least one Nobel laureate (economist Gary Becker).

Here’s what looks like a major step: a new blog by the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School.

The University of Chicago School of Law has always been a place about ideas. We love talking about them, writing about them, and refining them through open, often lively conversation. This blog is just a natural extension of that tradition. Our hope is to use the blog as a forum in which to exchange nascent ideas with each other and also a wider audience, and to hear feedback about which ideas are compelling and which could use some re-tooling.

The entire faculty! Taking turns blogging, discussing recondite legal issues within an informal format that is readily accessible to interested nonexperts. Jack Balkin has a good take on the project; it will be interesting to see how it develops.

Perhaps, after cautiously observing the experience of their colleagues across campus, more scientists will come to appreciate the fact that they are paid not only to discover new things about the world, but to communicate to others what it is that they’ve discovered.

Faculty blogging Read More »

5 Comments

Life in the Solar System

Bitch Ph.D. is temporarily away, but loyal spouse Mr. B. has taken control and turned the site into — a science blog! Today he’s talking about the interesting issue of contaminating other planets with organisms from Earth.

Nowadays, when we send out space probes, we sterilize them. What little I know of this seems to indicate that our sterilization processes may be far from perfect. Regardless, the rationale for sterilization is sound — whether or not life exists or has existed at the probe’s destination, sending some of Earth’s life to the destination would potentially muck things up beyond repair. When we fear a spacecraft might not be sterile, we purposefully destroy it while it still has fuel enough to perform a fatal maneuver, as we did with the Galileo probe to protect the potential life on Jupiter’s moon Europa from earthy microbes possibly riding on the probe. These are real concerns that govern our use of current robotic space probes.

Suppose we didn’t worry about such things. Suppose there is life, an ecosystem, where we send a space probe. Suppose further, that some hardy bacteria or fungus stowed away on the space probe and is thereby introduced into the alien ecosystem. Chances are it will die out. However, there’s a slim chance that such stowaways could find habitat, potentially altering or even destroying an existing alien ecosystem.

I suspect it’s pretty unlikely that we will ever find anything worth of the name “life” on Mars or elsewhere in the Solar System, but I’m certainly no expert. If we did find anything, of course, it would be incredibly important, so I am happy to keep an open mind. (On the other hand, given the small chances, I agree with a colleague who says “It’s more important to look for supersymmetry than for life on Mars.”)

Still, one of the absolutely fascinating recent advances in the study of life’s origin has been the possible role of extraterrestrial chemistry. The classic Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated the possibility of creating amino acids by shooting sparks into a chamber designed to mimic the atmosphere of the young Earth. But apparently there’s good reason to believe that the Earth’s atmosphere wasn’t really like that in the experiment; in particular, it had more oxygen and less reducing compounds, and nobody has been able to make amino acids by zapping an atmosphere of that type.

On the other hand, conditions for synthesis of amino acids may exist in space! Interstellar clouds appear to be good places to create prebiotic organic compounds, or even proto-cells. It’s perfectly plausible that these could have been brought to Earth early on by crashing comets and meteorites. If so, it’s clear that the other planets would have received similar interplanetary donations of organic materials; no reason to believe that they necessarily evolved into life, but a fascinating possibility nevertheless.

Life in the Solar System Read More »

10 Comments

Lurker Day

Today is Lurker Day, as explained by Chris at Creek Running North, Lauren at Feministe, and PZ at Pharyngula. (Three of the coolest blogs on all the internets, I should add.) That is, lazy bloggers avoid posting original content by asking their readers who never (or rarely) comment to drop by and leave a note saying who they are and what they like about the blog. (Other blogs also ask for something called “constructive criticism,” or perhaps even for suggestions for improvement; we here at CV see no need for such things. But if you are so moved, knock yourselves out.)

I’m especially curious as to two demographic questions: how many readers are professionally science-related in some way vs. how many are from the so-called “real world,” and among the former, how many are students vs. embittered elders. No pressure, obviously; consider this just a chance to pipe up and say hi if you haven’t yet had the chance to comment.

Lurker Day Read More »

137 Comments
Scroll to Top