Tag: Scientific Process

Melville on Science vs. Creation Myth

From Melville’s under-appreciated Mardi:

On a quest for his missing love Yillah, an AWOL sailor pretending to be a demi-god travels the (imaginary) Mardi chain of Polynesian islands via canoe fleet, in the company of fellow demi-god King Media and his entourage. After viewing some fossils, the group’s resident philosopher, Babbalanja is asked how the islands were created. A scientific explanation being unsatisfactory to the group, Babbalanja presents an alternate hypothesis:

Media said:—”Babbalanja, you love all mysteries; here’s a fitting theme. You have given us the history of the rock; can your sapience tell the origin of all the isles? how Mardi came to be?” Continue reading “Melville on Science vs. Creation Myth”

The Conundrum of the Layman

Brad DeLong quotes a blogger reflecting on the disadvantages of the non-scientist when trying to decide whether to believe a scientific theory:

For Jason Kuznicki says he does not grok relativity:

“I’ve read several books about evolutionary theory, and they seem convincing to me. I’ve read Darwin. I’ve read Gould. I’ve read Dennett. In college, my physical anthropology textbooks made sense to me, although I admit I’ve forgotten their authors’ names. I haven’t read Dawkins, but I suspect I can do without him. I’m already quite convinced.

Now this is not always the case when I read about science. I’ve also read several books about relativity, and I’m not convinced. The stuff just makes no sense to me, and I sort of have to shrug and give up. Where my rational side agrees that evolution is correct, I’m taking relativity on the authority of others. You don’t really want to hear what my rational side says about relativity. It’s too embarrassing.

I strongly suspect that most non-scientists who say otherwise about relativity are either talking out their asses or else have turned relativity into a sort of well-boundaried micro-religion… They can’t explain it, but fie on you if you don’t believe. Now, plenty of people do not, in fact, believe it, and not because it is nonsensical to them, but because they have never tried to understand it — what they’ve heard about it gives them the howling fantods, and they give up before they try.”

Continue reading “The Conundrum of the Layman”

Trends in Genetics

Although it may not be obvious here, I also occasionally write formal scientific stuff, like a review article for Trends in Genetics:

Joshua T. Witten and Jernej Ule, “Understanding splicing regulation through RNA splicing maps,” Trends in Genetics (1, 2011). Continue reading “Trends in Genetics”

Biology lessons from economics

The science of economics often takes a pummeling in the press, largely because this field is so intertwined with the messy business of policy. But from a pure research perspective, the way economists successfully handle extremely heterogeneous systems with some relatively simple mathematical models offers some lessons for biologists.

While reading this piece (Paul Krugman talking about his research career), I was struck by how biologists are faced with similar problems:

Robert Solow used to tell his students that there were two kinds of theorists: those who like to generalize, and those who like to look for illuminating special cases. Continue reading “Biology lessons from economics”

Cinde-really? Part 1

The Frogger loves Disney‘s Cinderella, mainly because she thinks Cinderella’s ball gown in pretty, likes dancing, and loves all the cute animals[1,2]. As a result, I have had many opportunities over the past few months to observe this film in great detail, repeatedly. These posts resulted from subjecting the normally active mind, thirsting for stimulation, to triplicate viewings whilst traversing the wintry wastelands of the Midwest, with the first of two presented here, wherein I shall examine what we can infer about the kingdom in Cinderella is set and why you might not want to live in that land of Fairy Tales. Continue reading “Cinde-really? Part 1”