Hili: I’m worried.
A: Why?
Hili: Because I no longer fit on two jars.
Hili: Martwię się.
Ja: Czym?
Hili: Że już nie mieszczę się na dwóch słoikach.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
If you’re a baker and an ailurophile, you really need to get one of these. Imagine a pie crust embossed with cats—how cool would that be? These wooden rolling pins are engraved with lasers, and emboss their patterns on your dough:
But many designs are available. This is one that Matthew Cobb (a dinosaur lover) would like. Dino cookies!
Or you can get foxes (honorary cats):
If you’re solipsistic, you can have your name engraved:
You can buy these and many other designs at the Etsy store Valek Rolling Pins (they’re made in Warsaw, Poland). Most of these will set you back $40-$50, while custom designs will set you back about $135.
h/t: Su
by Matthew Cobb
A science journalist friend of mine is getting married this summer. She sent me this mail, which I thought I’d pass on to you:
I’m writing a little science-themed pub quiz – a friendly bit of entertainment for my wedding this August. Could you suggest any nice multiple choice science questions for a lay audience? The quirkier the better.
A pub quiz, in case you don’t know, takes place in a pub (amazing, no?) and generally involves teams. The questions are generally a mixture of general knowledge and obscure facts, and are often divided up into several sections. Getting the answers/giving the marks (generally done by swapping answer sheets between teams) is often a raucous affair.
So, please post in the comments below your favourite questions. Don’t bother with the answers for the moment – that will be part of the fun: if you think you know the answer to a question, post it as a reply, NB I haven’t given her name so we won’t be making it easy for any of the invitees. And don’t forget – general science questions, not just biology, and for a non-specialist audience.
Here’s my question:
How many smells can the human nose detect?
a) 100,000
b) 1,000,000
c) 1,000,000,000
d) 1,000,000,000,000
e) Over 1,000,000,000,000
“Doctor Oz,” whose real name is Mehmet Cengiz Öz, is a cardiovascular surgeon who is famous—or rather infamous—for touting “alternative medicine” on his television show. Like the psychologist “Dr. Phil,” Dr. Oz was launched by Oprah Winfrey, and became sufficiently popular to warrant his own show, “The Dr. Oz Show.” He’s also written several bestselling books. His notoriety comes from endorsing questionable cures, especially products that supposedly help with weight loss. But he’s endorsed a lot of other woo, too. As Wikipedia notes:
Popular Science and The New Yorker have expressed criticism of Oz for his non-scientific advice. These criticisms include questioning if he is “doing more harm than good”. In an article in Slate, a medical researcher said that Oz’s work bordered on quackery. The James Randi Educational Foundation has given Oz its Pigasus Award for Refusal to Face Reality at least three times. Oz has been supportive of pseudosciences such as faith healing, homeopathy and psychic communication with the dead. In 2011 Independent Investigations Group awarded The Truly Terrible Television award to Oz and Oprah Winfrey “for extraordinary contributions to America’s scientific illiteracy and pervasive fear mongering.”
Yesterday, Dr. Oz testified before Congress, or rather, before Senator Claire McCaskill’s (Democrat, Missouri) Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Product Safety. As Chris Morran reports at Consumerist, and as you can see in the video below (it’s long!), Oz was given a public spanking for making questionable claims. Oz tried to defend himself, but he was lame.
A few snippets from the piece:
[McCaskill} went straight for Dr. Oz’s jugular in her opening remarks on this morning’s hearing about the false and deceptive advertising of weight-loss products.
“When you feature a product on your show, it creates what has become known as ‘Oz Effect,’ dramatically boosting sales and driving scam artists to pop up overnight using false and deceptive ads to sell questionable products,” the Senator explained. “I’m concerned that you are melding medical advice, news and entertainment in a way that harms consumers.”
. . . Sen. McCaskill quoted three statements that the great and doctorful Oz had made about different weight-loss treatments on his show:
•(On green coffee extract) — “You may think magic is make-believe, but this little bean has scientists saying they found the magic weight-loss for every body type.”
•(On raspberry ketone) — “I’ve got the number one miracle in a bottle to burn your fat” (raspberry ketone)
•(On garcinia cambogia) — “It may be the simple solution you’ve been looking for to bust your body fat for good.”
“I don’t get why you say this stuff, because you know it’s not true,” said McCaskill. “So why, when you have this amazing megaphone, and this amazing ability to communicate, why would you cheapen your show by saying things like that?”
. . . the Senator wasn’t going to let him off the hook.
“The scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products that you called miracles,” she told the doctor. “And when you call a product a miracle and it’s something that you can buy and it’s something that gives people false hope, I just don’t understand why you need to go there.”
Dr. Oz countered ineffectually:
Dr. Oz openly admitted that the weight-loss treatments he mentions on the show are frequently “crutches… You won’t get there without diet and exercise,” and that while he believes in the research he’s done, the research done on these treatments would probably not pass FDA muster.
“If the only message I gave was to eat less and move more — which is the most important thing people need to do — we wouldn’t be very effectively tackling this complex challenge because viewers know these tips and they still struggle,” said the doctor. “So we search for tools and crutches; short-term supports so that people can jumpstart their programs.”
“Tools and crutches”? Really, will taking green coffee extract act as a sort of placebo, but one that will motivate people to do the real work needed to lose weight: stop eating so much and get more exercise? Oz just kept rabbiting on, emphasizing how much care he takes to protect his reputation (such as it is) and to keep people from using his name to sell their products.
“My job, I feel, on the show is to be a cheerleader for the audience and when they don’t think they have hope, when they don’t think they can make it happen, I wanna look — and I do look — everywhere… for any evidence that might be supportive to them,” explained Oz, who believes that products like green coffee extract jumpstart someone’s weight loss program and “gives you the confidence to keep going, and then you start to follow the things that we talk about every single day — including those seven items [on the FTC Gut Check list].”
The problem is that stuff like raspberry ketones and green-coffee-bean extract give people false hopes. I wonder if people have really used those products as crutches in the way Dr. Oz characterizes them. In fact, he doesn’t present them as placebos, but as things that work by themselves to take off weight, so he’s actively misleading people. “Evidence” is not evidence if there’s no good research behind it.
Finally, in one exchange McCaskill, who is relentless, takes Dr. Oz down several notches:
Throughout his testimony, Dr. Oz repeatedly reminded the subcommittee that he has to do constant damage [sic] reputation — along with taking legal action against some scammers — because of the people who abuse his enthusiastic statements for their own ends. However, the Senator was not exactly moved to tears.
“I know you feel that you’re a victim, but sometimes conduct invites being a victim,” concluded McCaskill. “I think that if you would be more careful, maybe you wouldn’t be victimized quite as frequently.”
Sound familiar?
Here’s all of Dr. Oz’s testimony, but it’s 1.5 hours long. Click on the screenshot to go to the C-Span video:
Kudos to Senator McCaskill for being so forthright and aggressive. Obesity is a huge problem in the U.S. (the high percentage of overweight Americans is one of the first thing foreigners notice when visiting our country) and there’s no miracle cure for it save the onerous operation of bariatric surgery (shrinking the stomach).
h/t: Grania, Hempenstein
Deepak Chopra desperately needs treatment for Maru’s Syndrome, for he simply can’t stay out of the box. In the last couple of day’s he’s put up two more videos on Randi’s “The Amazing Meeting” (TAM) and Chopra’s own Million Dollar Challenge, in which—mocking James Randi—Deepakity offers a cool million to anyone who can “explain” the Hard Problem of Consciousness (the origin of subjective sensation from brain activity) in a peer-reviewed journal.
The man has serious problems leaving well enough alone.
At about 1:10 in the first video below, Chopra plays the victim card (see also the next video). But he’s really using his clarification to heap more calumny on sceptics for being “bamboozled by their perceptions.” He claims that “whatever we experience as reality is the contents of our minds”. Indeed that’s true, but that doesn’t mean that there’s not a reality out there, nor that our senses tell us nothing accurate about it. Chopra’s claim reminds me of this old limerick:
There was a faith healer from Deale,
Who said, although pain isn’t real,
If I sit on a pin and it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel!
The heart of Chopra’s argument, and a major part of his “philosophy,” is in the quote below, which he proposes as the SOLUTION to the hard problem. (Does that mean if I publish it, I get the million? Will a peer-reviewed journal take it?):
The Big Claim comes up at 1:55:
“What I basically wanted to do was propose an alternative solution to the hard problem, which is a top-down solution. Instead of assuming that physical reality is fundamental, start with consciousness as being fundamental. Consciousness conceives, governs, constructs—and becomes the physical reality of the world, including our body and also our mental activity. If you assume that, and if you start with consciousness as a field of possibilities that’s [obscure] that produces qualia, which are experienced as both mental and physical world, then you may have a solution.”
This is like saying that urine is fundamental, and that its presence creates the kidneys.
The margins of this post are too small to describe all the problems with this, including the fact that things happened before human consciousness arose—or any organismal consciousness arose—that don’t seem to be the products of our minds. What about those craters on the moon, or the Big Bang? Were those produced by consciousness? (Apparently so, because Chopra once said that the Moon isn’t there until we perceive it.) If so, then our consciousness has done a very good job of making it look as if there were an external reality that preceded our evolution. Of course, if Chopra thinks that the Universe is conscious, and somehow creates itself, then the onus is on him to explain what he means.
Chopra’s “solution” (which of course would be rejected by any respectable journal on the grounds of sheer lunacy), is also cynical, because it shows that he doesn’t really believe in the Hard Problem that he’s offering money to solve. The Hard Problem is, after all, how neuronal impulses operating in a physical brain produces that notion of consciousness that experienced as subjective sensations (“qualia”). But that’s not the way he thinks it happens: he thinks that consciousness precedes the brain, and somehow creates it. If that’s the case, then there IS no hard problem.
Or, rather, there’s another Hard Problem: where does the consciousness come from without physical reality, and how does it create physical reality? If I had a million bucks, I’d offer it to Chopra to explain that. But of course he doesn’t need the dough, for he can already afford diamond-studded spectacles.
But on to his “clarification” of his million dollar challenge (love those glasses!).
Below is Chopra’s rant about The Amazing Meeting. His immaturity is amply on display here, evidenced by both his pervasive insults of the TAM attendees (“militant atheists and professional sceptics and professional debunkers”—not at all true!), and others like Dawkins and Dennett. He calls TAM a “self-congratulatory meeting” full of “hard core materialists” and “those who are self-appointed vigilantes for the suppression of QSD: creativity, imagination, and legitimate scientific inquiry.”
It goes on and on, but the gist is that Chopra is trying to tell D. J. Grothe to invite him and his woo-ey cronies so there can be a real conversation: a real “amazing meeting.” The best part is when Chopra says he would bring bodyguards to protect him from the “physical onslaughts” he’d surely experience at TAM. The last part of the video is a tedious reiteration of his theories of mind and matter.
Note that at 5:30 Chopra characterizes Richard Dawkins as “supposedly an evolutionary biologist but doesn’t seem to haven’t really [sic] kept up with epigenetics.” Really? I have kept up with epigenetics, and there’s nothing in it that supports Chopra’s new Big Idea that your mind can permanently change your genes. Even Chopra’s colleague, Rudolph Tanzi, has admitted that there’s no evidence for this. “Epigenetics”, it appears, is replacing “quantum” as Chopra’s new buzzword.
Finally, some unknown wag has produced a short parody of Chopra’s initial “challenge” video:
Here are today’s matches; unfortunately, I have visitors and will miss them all though I’d like to see the Netherlands play again, and Spain vs. Chile would be fun.
Brazil can’t be too happy with its team now. . . .
. . . and the Google Doodles continue to have a World Cup theme. This animated version (click on screenshot to see) appears to show a kid practicing on the roof of a favela:
In today’s strip, Jesus asks Mo to solve The Hard Problem of Islam. Mo behaves like a true “liberal” Muslim: