A friend of mine from lab recently sent me this article, which I rather enjoyed and thought I'd talk about for a bit.
The article addresses a couple of recent neuroscience research projects that potentially have implications for the free will vs. determinism debate. The results of these studies speak to a relatively new phenomenon that has become something of a concern for philosophers engaging in this discussion: What if, with the assistance of an fMRI machine or other form of observation, we can more accurately predict a person's future behavior than they can? Does this automatically mean that we don't possess free will?
I liked this article because it broke down the finer points of the argument quite nicely, firstly pointing out the holes in the study being examined (which was able to show brain activity leading up to a 'decision-making' event up to 7 seconds before the subject reported making the decision), then by slowly revealing that the term 'free will' is irresponsibly vague.
In both philosophy and science, it is necessary to define terms with a certain level of concreteness, otherwise nothing can be determined for sure. If you can't agree on the variable to be measured, then you can't measure it, and you certainly can't draw conclusions about it. This is a big problem when addressing free will, because there are subconscious processes that take place in the brain, and they (apparently) can apply to decision-making.
If I subconsciously initiate a decision, then a few seconds later it floats into my conscious mind, and a few seconds after that, I engage in the behavior specified by that decision, then who made it? Who am "I?" Does the entity of "Amanda" encompass my subconscious mind, which is very much involved in my thoughts, emotions and decisions, but which I cannot openly detect? Or is my subconscious this puppet-master that I cannot deny or fight? And what if my conscious desires are in direct conflict with my subconscious desires? Do I have the ability to overturn decisions that I wasn't even aware I had already made?
The joke here is that a simple fMRI will never address these questions, and that is why neuroscientists and philosophers will always butt heads. But I'm confident that the struggle itself will yield answers, and in the meantime, we'll understand something more about brain behavior, which is always useful information.
For me, the free will vs. determinism debate is a futile one. I will never know what "me" is. Where do I sit? In my hippocampus? In my frontal lobe? In a delicate network spanning multiple systems in my central nervous system? Where do I end? And if determinism somehow turns out to be the true answer, who cares? I still feel the satisfaction of choice, even if it isn't real. I'm still happy with the circumstances of my life, so long as someone else doesn't take hold of it. I still know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is a "me," even if neuroscience eventually proves otherwise.
I think, therefore I am. Even if an fMRI can't find me.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Reading List
I tend to be about a year or two behind on every important trend in literature and TV. It drives my friends insane, because they spend their time geeking out about the latest... whatever, and a year later I come along repeating everything they said.
Parties that I have joined embarrassingly late: Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, 30 Rock, Doctor Who and many, many more.
I should wise up and jump on these bandwagons sooner. But so far, that has yet to happen.
Which is why I'm just now watching Game of Thrones. It's every bit as amazing - and as terrifyingly violent - as I was warned it would be. And it has also bumped my reading list down a notch, as I insist on reading the book alongside the TV series.
This means two things for this blog: 1) I'll be somewhat intellectually absent while I'm watching the show, because I tend to get immersed when watching/reading fantasy or sci fi. and 2) my review of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks will have to wait. I know I hadn't promised anything yet, but it was next on my reading list, and I had planned on reviewing it here. I'm currently about halfway through it. I might be able to power through the second half before my copy of Game of Thrones arrives in the mail. We'll see.
In the meantime, consider this my personal recommendation that you buy a copy of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks because it's a worthwhile read. I'll review it when I do finish it, whenever that happens to be. But for now I just thought I'd give you a heads-up.
And if you can handle horrific violence, Game of Thrones (from what I understand and have seen thus far) is phenomenal as well. But this is a science blog, so I won't be reviewing it either way.
Parties that I have joined embarrassingly late: Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, 30 Rock, Doctor Who and many, many more.
I should wise up and jump on these bandwagons sooner. But so far, that has yet to happen.
Which is why I'm just now watching Game of Thrones. It's every bit as amazing - and as terrifyingly violent - as I was warned it would be. And it has also bumped my reading list down a notch, as I insist on reading the book alongside the TV series.
This means two things for this blog: 1) I'll be somewhat intellectually absent while I'm watching the show, because I tend to get immersed when watching/reading fantasy or sci fi. and 2) my review of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks will have to wait. I know I hadn't promised anything yet, but it was next on my reading list, and I had planned on reviewing it here. I'm currently about halfway through it. I might be able to power through the second half before my copy of Game of Thrones arrives in the mail. We'll see.
In the meantime, consider this my personal recommendation that you buy a copy of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks because it's a worthwhile read. I'll review it when I do finish it, whenever that happens to be. But for now I just thought I'd give you a heads-up.
And if you can handle horrific violence, Game of Thrones (from what I understand and have seen thus far) is phenomenal as well. But this is a science blog, so I won't be reviewing it either way.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Just for Fun
I know this is really old news, but I've just been in love with Symphony of Science and Ted Talks lately. Let me explain briefly why I think media like this is so worthwhile.
Symphony of Science, while a little geeky, takes a subject that is meant to be entirely intellectual and logical, and admits that which we never really dare to talk about: the evocative nature of science. Of course major scientific discoveries evoke strong emotions in us; they affect our understanding of ourselves, the nature of the universe and our connection to it. Gaining a fuller understanding of human nature, by definition, must strike a chord within us.
This project brings that aspect of scientific discovery to the forefront, while still keeping things light-hearted and fun. I enjoy listening to it when my experiments in lab aren't going quite as planned. When I'm stressed about school, Symphony of Science reminds me why I'm doing what I'm doing. My purpose as a grad student is so easy to lose track of in the minutiae of experimental details. I get frustrated easily, too, so this is a common occurrence for me. Although I gather that stress, exhaustion and self-doubt are status quo for most grad students, especially in the sciences. I might touch on that in another entry.
As for Ted Talks, I think they serve a couple purposes. Firstly, they take the newest, shiniest, most cutting-edge scientific and artistic discoveries and make them accessible to the layperson through the use of fun little informal, short lectures. It's really entertaining to hear about things in an entirely different field, or even to hear a new perspective on a technology I already understand.
Secondly, Ted Talks are highly social. They're not lectures. They always touch on the social impact of a technology or discovery, or the long-term implications of an event within the world of science. What is the ripple effect here? How will this change the day-to-day life of the layperson, even those who may never hear about it?
Thirdly, they're often emotional. I can't explain it, but apparently when you get a scientific expert up on a stage and tell them they can talk about whatever they want and be as informal as they please, they almost always end up crying. I find it refreshing to see that side of scientists - it's something you glimpse in Symphony of Science, too. You get to see that poetic side, that ecstatic little kid inside every scientist. I think that's an important aspect of the field for laypeople to see and understand. And this type of laid-back media is exactly the way to distribute that information.
Along those lines, I find the juxtaposition of Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson in Symphony of Science to be so entertaining. Carl Sagan is known for his sense of awe when discussing the cosmos, but he's so quiet and collected about it. Whereas Neil DeGrasse Tyson is sort of known for geeking out and getting overly excited. I love how they're expressing the same emotion, but with totally opposite reactions. I can relate to both.
So enjoy! My favorites on Symphony of Science right now are: "We are all Connected," "The Case for Mars," "Ode to the Brain," and "Children of Africa." As for Ted Talks, you could get lost on that website for hours. There's so much. But it's definitely worth a look.
Symphony of Science, while a little geeky, takes a subject that is meant to be entirely intellectual and logical, and admits that which we never really dare to talk about: the evocative nature of science. Of course major scientific discoveries evoke strong emotions in us; they affect our understanding of ourselves, the nature of the universe and our connection to it. Gaining a fuller understanding of human nature, by definition, must strike a chord within us.
This project brings that aspect of scientific discovery to the forefront, while still keeping things light-hearted and fun. I enjoy listening to it when my experiments in lab aren't going quite as planned. When I'm stressed about school, Symphony of Science reminds me why I'm doing what I'm doing. My purpose as a grad student is so easy to lose track of in the minutiae of experimental details. I get frustrated easily, too, so this is a common occurrence for me. Although I gather that stress, exhaustion and self-doubt are status quo for most grad students, especially in the sciences. I might touch on that in another entry.
As for Ted Talks, I think they serve a couple purposes. Firstly, they take the newest, shiniest, most cutting-edge scientific and artistic discoveries and make them accessible to the layperson through the use of fun little informal, short lectures. It's really entertaining to hear about things in an entirely different field, or even to hear a new perspective on a technology I already understand.
Secondly, Ted Talks are highly social. They're not lectures. They always touch on the social impact of a technology or discovery, or the long-term implications of an event within the world of science. What is the ripple effect here? How will this change the day-to-day life of the layperson, even those who may never hear about it?
Thirdly, they're often emotional. I can't explain it, but apparently when you get a scientific expert up on a stage and tell them they can talk about whatever they want and be as informal as they please, they almost always end up crying. I find it refreshing to see that side of scientists - it's something you glimpse in Symphony of Science, too. You get to see that poetic side, that ecstatic little kid inside every scientist. I think that's an important aspect of the field for laypeople to see and understand. And this type of laid-back media is exactly the way to distribute that information.
Along those lines, I find the juxtaposition of Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson in Symphony of Science to be so entertaining. Carl Sagan is known for his sense of awe when discussing the cosmos, but he's so quiet and collected about it. Whereas Neil DeGrasse Tyson is sort of known for geeking out and getting overly excited. I love how they're expressing the same emotion, but with totally opposite reactions. I can relate to both.
So enjoy! My favorites on Symphony of Science right now are: "We are all Connected," "The Case for Mars," "Ode to the Brain," and "Children of Africa." As for Ted Talks, you could get lost on that website for hours. There's so much. But it's definitely worth a look.
Friday, September 16, 2011
The "Safe" Answer
As much as it concerns me that starting this blog with a political topic might turn people off, I'm going to go with my instinct to write what's on my mind. Let's talk about Michelle Bachmann and vaccines.
There have been many articles lately on the remarks the congresswoman made - and later defended - at the Republican debate. In case you haven't been following, I'll summarize: She has spoken out against Gardasil, the HPV vaccine that can help lower a woman's chances of contracting cervical cancer. But she didn't just speak out against the vaccine, she created a rumor that it can cause mental retardation in children.
I'd like to focus on one aspect of this story that I feel has some relevance to science education. Here's the article that got me started thinking about it, for your reference. There's a lot going on in that article, especially about Rick Perry, but I'm not here to talk about politics, so I'm going to skip over all that and focus on one remark made by Ms. Bachmann: “This is the very real concern and people have to draw their own conclusions.”
I find this argument both fascinating and disturbing, and I'm certain I've seen it before, specifically in a video that made the rounds a while ago from the Miss USA pageant. The contestants were asked whether evolution should be taught in schools. The overwhelming majority said no, because they 'don't believe in evolution.' But a precious few gave what was clearly considered to be the "safe" answer: teach the debate. This stance is so common it has become something of a catch phrase within the evolution vs. creationism conversation.
I really think the Miss USA contestants and Ms. Bachmann are saying the same thing: tell people that there is a controversy. Don't represent the facts, don't educate them about science or even mention that conclusive scientific data exists on the subject... No, just tell them "There is a debate going on. You should pay attention, and form your own opinions."
It sounds innocent enough. After all, we want people to think for themselves. So they should look at the debate themselves, right? They should gather the facts and come to a conclusion on their own. But don't be fooled. This argument is already biased toward an anti-science conclusion. It sends people off running in the wrong direction, while veiling itself behind a guise of neutrality.
What Bachmann is really doing here is putting on a show. She starts a rumor that casts her opponent in a negative light and makes her look like a hero for drawing attention to some flaw of her own invention. Then, when she is confronted with real, scientific evidence that her claims are completely fabricated, she throws her hands up and says "That's just what I heard! I'll let people make up their own minds." It sets the stage for anti-science rhetoric, because any retort automatically sounds like an implication that people shouldn't be allowed to make up their own minds, when in reality the public has been handicapped in their ability to approach the subject neutrally. Bachmann creates controversy where there is none, then walks away and lets the scientists talk in circles trying to repair the damage.
The same goes for the "teach the debate" attitude toward evolution. At the end of the day, a science classroom is a science classroom, and it is the responsibility of a teacher only to teach science. Not politics, and certainly not religion. But this idea has somehow become what is considered the "safe" answer. Why do people hear this, and think it's neutral? Or innocent? This is the most politically charged sentiment I've ever heard on the subject of science education. What these people are really saying - both Bachmann and the "teach the debaters" - is that it's okay to make up false rumors about science and medicine, misrepresent or even completely silence the facts, then tell people to come to conclusions based on incomplete and falsified evidence. It's okay to handicap people when their health and education is concerned. Because ignorance endows us with political and social power, and let's be honest, that was really the point all along.
I think if you sat Michelle Bachmann down and asked her if she thinks that science education is important, she would say yes. And she'd mean it, emphatically. But she clearly doesn't fully understand the underlying principle of skepticism or the importance of the scientific process. She is actively crippling the science education of the public when she spreads lies for her own gain.
Given that, know this: when you say "wouldn't it be better to teach the debate?" and I say "No," I'm not trying to keep the truth from you. I'm trying to keep you from allowing the truth to be poisoned for you, before you have a chance to study it for yourself. This isn't a safe answer. It's a highly political answer; a mean trick. And it does tangible harm; don't forget that we're talking about medicine here. The HPV vaccine prevents cancer. It actually prevents cancer. Michelle Bachmann is scaring people into avoiding a vaccine that could save their lives. Why? So she can gain more votes.
So, the next time someone says "You should investigate this debate and draw your own conclusions," start your investigation by asking the question: is there even really a debate going on? I think you'll be surprised how often you'll find the answer is 'No.'
There have been many articles lately on the remarks the congresswoman made - and later defended - at the Republican debate. In case you haven't been following, I'll summarize: She has spoken out against Gardasil, the HPV vaccine that can help lower a woman's chances of contracting cervical cancer. But she didn't just speak out against the vaccine, she created a rumor that it can cause mental retardation in children.
I'd like to focus on one aspect of this story that I feel has some relevance to science education. Here's the article that got me started thinking about it, for your reference. There's a lot going on in that article, especially about Rick Perry, but I'm not here to talk about politics, so I'm going to skip over all that and focus on one remark made by Ms. Bachmann: “This is the very real concern and people have to draw their own conclusions.”
I find this argument both fascinating and disturbing, and I'm certain I've seen it before, specifically in a video that made the rounds a while ago from the Miss USA pageant. The contestants were asked whether evolution should be taught in schools. The overwhelming majority said no, because they 'don't believe in evolution.' But a precious few gave what was clearly considered to be the "safe" answer: teach the debate. This stance is so common it has become something of a catch phrase within the evolution vs. creationism conversation.
I really think the Miss USA contestants and Ms. Bachmann are saying the same thing: tell people that there is a controversy. Don't represent the facts, don't educate them about science or even mention that conclusive scientific data exists on the subject... No, just tell them "There is a debate going on. You should pay attention, and form your own opinions."
It sounds innocent enough. After all, we want people to think for themselves. So they should look at the debate themselves, right? They should gather the facts and come to a conclusion on their own. But don't be fooled. This argument is already biased toward an anti-science conclusion. It sends people off running in the wrong direction, while veiling itself behind a guise of neutrality.
What Bachmann is really doing here is putting on a show. She starts a rumor that casts her opponent in a negative light and makes her look like a hero for drawing attention to some flaw of her own invention. Then, when she is confronted with real, scientific evidence that her claims are completely fabricated, she throws her hands up and says "That's just what I heard! I'll let people make up their own minds." It sets the stage for anti-science rhetoric, because any retort automatically sounds like an implication that people shouldn't be allowed to make up their own minds, when in reality the public has been handicapped in their ability to approach the subject neutrally. Bachmann creates controversy where there is none, then walks away and lets the scientists talk in circles trying to repair the damage.
The same goes for the "teach the debate" attitude toward evolution. At the end of the day, a science classroom is a science classroom, and it is the responsibility of a teacher only to teach science. Not politics, and certainly not religion. But this idea has somehow become what is considered the "safe" answer. Why do people hear this, and think it's neutral? Or innocent? This is the most politically charged sentiment I've ever heard on the subject of science education. What these people are really saying - both Bachmann and the "teach the debaters" - is that it's okay to make up false rumors about science and medicine, misrepresent or even completely silence the facts, then tell people to come to conclusions based on incomplete and falsified evidence. It's okay to handicap people when their health and education is concerned. Because ignorance endows us with political and social power, and let's be honest, that was really the point all along.
I think if you sat Michelle Bachmann down and asked her if she thinks that science education is important, she would say yes. And she'd mean it, emphatically. But she clearly doesn't fully understand the underlying principle of skepticism or the importance of the scientific process. She is actively crippling the science education of the public when she spreads lies for her own gain.
Given that, know this: when you say "wouldn't it be better to teach the debate?" and I say "No," I'm not trying to keep the truth from you. I'm trying to keep you from allowing the truth to be poisoned for you, before you have a chance to study it for yourself. This isn't a safe answer. It's a highly political answer; a mean trick. And it does tangible harm; don't forget that we're talking about medicine here. The HPV vaccine prevents cancer. It actually prevents cancer. Michelle Bachmann is scaring people into avoiding a vaccine that could save their lives. Why? So she can gain more votes.
So, the next time someone says "You should investigate this debate and draw your own conclusions," start your investigation by asking the question: is there even really a debate going on? I think you'll be surprised how often you'll find the answer is 'No.'
Thursday, September 15, 2011
About Me.
I have such a hard time with introductory posts. I always end up sounding like a vaguely British robot. I'll try to avoid that this time, but no promises.
At the risk of sounding like a photo-copy of my resume, here are the facts:
My name is Amanda. I am, for now, 24 years old and a Detroit native living in San Antonio with my boyfriend (Brandon) of 3 1/2 years. I'm a little more than halfway through my Master's degree, which happens to be in Cellular and Structural Biology. I have a pet rat named Myelin. I love bright colors so much my apartment gives most people a headache upon entering. I'm a self-described geek (though, who isn't these days?) and I tend to get overly excited about most everything. I'm told it's part of my charm.
As for this blog, it exists because I have opinions and, quite frankly, I'm loud. But more than that, I've been learning a lot about science as of late (grad school will do that to you) and suddenly I find myself with a burning desire to record my thoughts on the subject. So here we are.
At the risk of sounding like a photo-copy of my resume, here are the facts:
My name is Amanda. I am, for now, 24 years old and a Detroit native living in San Antonio with my boyfriend (Brandon) of 3 1/2 years. I'm a little more than halfway through my Master's degree, which happens to be in Cellular and Structural Biology. I have a pet rat named Myelin. I love bright colors so much my apartment gives most people a headache upon entering. I'm a self-described geek (though, who isn't these days?) and I tend to get overly excited about most everything. I'm told it's part of my charm.
As for this blog, it exists because I have opinions and, quite frankly, I'm loud. But more than that, I've been learning a lot about science as of late (grad school will do that to you) and suddenly I find myself with a burning desire to record my thoughts on the subject. So here we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)