Recent Comments

@Ben
The interview may be light on facts, but the book is not. I just finished reading it and was astounded that it was finished 85 pages early -- due to the notes and references that followed.

I was impressed with the abundance of balanced scientific evidence, with a preference not for the psychological, but for the somewhat more rigidly based biological kind. But that's just me, a reader with an opinion.

After putting down the book I find myself online searching out reviews, in the hope of further objectifying my opinion, and have found that scientific and mainstream reviewers, including Newsweek and NY Post, have raised their thumbs for Sex at Dawn. A recommended read, and, take it from me, loaded with plenty of backup.

If anyone wants to see the Righteous Indignation podcast conspiracy theory contest entry of mine that Desiree referred to, look for "We're Not in Kansas Anymore" in the "Notes" section of my Facebook profile.

For those who are interested, follow the links in the first paragraph of Skeptic North's Bryce Wylde article. There is some history given about how we became interested in his claims.

His <a href="http://twitter.com/WyldeOnHealth/status/21967875824">response</a> has been interesting... He tweeted:

“No!, these are but SOME of my favorite papers: http://tinyurl.com/39fk7a6 Many more than 21! ;o) ... Many more!”

For more information on homeopathy, see the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-homeopathy-inquiry/">UK Evidence Check</a> which is more comprehensive than the 21 papers I covered.

Off the cuff, I'm struck by the thought that when we can clearly and concisely describe the obstacles and "to do"s for a goal in a simple and general way that a lay person can understand, we are much further from that goal than we can imagine.

I would like to here more about the transhumanist perspective on "Why and How We Should Solve the World’s Problems", the theme for the second day of the singularity summit as mentioned by George.

http://www.singularitysummit.com/program

Interesting interview, especially the discussion on the nature of jealousy. It makes sense to me that sexual jealousy would not necessarily be distinct from "regular" jealousy. Also the Chinese culture in which the biological father is irrelevant to the raising of his child was interesting. However, as Desiree noted, a lot of this seemed like pure conjecture and speculation masquerading as science. Other than a study or two (e.g. of self-reported vs. bloodflow reported sexual arousal), Mr. Ryan seemed awfully light on hard facts. I understand that's the nature of evo psychology, but I was left with more questions than answers.

Wow Chakolate, that's a real compliment. Thanks. The whole issue is no different that vaccines, stem cells, evolution, bigfoot or area 51. We simply follow the evidence to make the best decisions.

I want more higher-quality food with fewer environmental impacts. That's what my job is about. We support traditional breeding. We test GMO. Whatever vehicle gets us there...

... and I follow the money too. Usually leads to something suspicious. That's why you can probably trust us university types!

Thanks again, and best wishes.

Kevin

Recommended reading!

The most convincing model I've heard for an AI that can actually surpass its programming comes from Rudy Rucker's Ware Tetralogy. I suspect that it'd be way easier to develop something organically than to try to skip to the end stage, which is what we seem to dream of doing. Shorter lifecycles might help? From the wiki article:

"The central technological speculation of the series are the "boppers", a kind of robot with artificial intelligence developed through natural selection rather than through design. Crediting mathematician Kurt Gödel with the germ of the idea, Software declares: "We cannot build an intelligent robot.... But we can cause one to evolve." By creating self-replicating robots whose programming is randomly altered periodically (and who can exchange programming information with each other in a form of sexual reproduction), and then forcing these robots to pass "fitness tests" in order to survive, Rucker suggests, true artificial intelligence that equals or surpasses the human brain could be developed. (Rucker discusses this same idea in his nonfiction work Infinity and the Mind.)"

Kevin,

Thanks for responding - it's very helpful. I find that in many controversial things, following the money often helps clarify it. :-)

I'm a big supporter of GM, and I don't think it's very far at all from what we've been doing for centuries with selective breeding. It's just (sometimes) more efficient.

I've always thought that any real scientist smart enough to work on genetic engineering should be smart enough to worry about mucking up the only planet we've got. Glad to see how smart you are. ;-)

...and I should mention, as soon as something does come up that illustrates a true danger of GM, I'll be all over it. If it shows up in my lab I'll be the first to publish it.

I'm all about feeding people and supporting the environment. That's my long-term mission. GE is just a tool to get there, and if it harms either it will be removed from the equation.

Kevin

Chakolate, Thanks for the note. None of my funding comes from Monsanto (wish it did!). My paycheck comes from University of Florida. Our science is funded by the National Science Foundation, USDA, the Florida Strawberry Growers' Association and whatever I contribute. The only corporate funding I receive come from compensation for consultation, but none of that has ever been from projects involving GM plants (my lab also studies optimization of artificial light environments, that's where it comes from).

The only GM plants we produce are for research purposes only. We can learn about what genes do, especially the huge number of genes classified as "unknown" or "hypothetical". What do they do? The only way to find out is to change their expression in the plant and see what happens. Once we know this we can find natural variants and make the crosses to bring in the desired traits by traditional breeding.

We'd love to use GM and see it deployed. We have plants that might solve important questions. Unfortunately just do to a test in the field is a massive amount of regulatory expense and paperwork (that our lab can't pay for). That's why the Monsanto's and Syngenta's monopolize the GM field. They are the only ones that can afford to deploy that technology (and would like to keep it that way).

I did leave out many important topics, and that was not by convenient omission. We only had 45 minutes, it went by in a blink, and most of the conversation was driven by the audience. If you have any other topics you'd like to discuss, just let me know.

I engage opportunities like Skeptically Speaking only to try to help educate the public, part of my job as a State researcher that fuels his program on federal funds. I don't want people to fear technology, but rather understand it. That's my only motivation. It would be easy to lock myself in my office and not enjoy public interaction (like most scientists do), but it is so important to share this information.

Thanks for listening. It is not the first time it has been suggested that I'm on the Monsanto payroll. I'm not going to get on it stating facts they already know!

I appreciate the feedback. Thank you.

Kevin

I've just been listening to the interview with Kevin Folta, and I wish you had asked him where his funding comes from. I agreed with a lot of what he said, but he came off sounding like a Monsanto PR flack. He was dismissive of farmers' concerns about terminal seeds, and left out a few very important aspects of that whole controversy. The escape of the flax plants and their genetic crosses in the wild is very significant, in my opinion.

Finding out that most of his funding comes from Monsanto or another GM research outfit wouldn't invalidate his opinion, but I would know more about how to evaluate it.

Anastasia,

You are correct, terminator technology was purely a concept, but it didn't take long for the folks opposed to the technology to grab on. Ironically, the same folks complain about containment of GE materials, and terminator-like technologies could help that. My point about hybrids was simply that those opposed to GE feel that terminator lines are unfair to farmers that want to brown-bag seeds for subsequent years. Hybrids are not much different. It is just protecting IP with heterozygousity! Thanks for the note.

Great discussion!
Just one quibble. I don't think Kevin mentioned that there are no terminator seeds on the market and there never have been. Hybrids don't breed true, but that's very different from terminator technology.

Dear Kevin,

I always look forward to listening to scientists in a speciality speak on subjects that should not be controversial.

Could you address your views on modern Luddism wrt biotechnologies, possible gross waste recycling (CO2 and sewage) and nuclear technologies?

We agree with you. Now to get everyone else on board. ;)

Thanks Stew! That's exactly why we don't stick to the more traditional skeptical topics; consumer protection episodes show precisely why critical thinking is important on an everyday level.

Any other women-centric-but-still-accessible-to-the-men topic ideas are welcome and encouraged!

And I would have LOVED to have heard Paula's answer to that question. :)

- in the few minutes, talking about the defining word skeptic and the negative view of the word. Yes I prefer the word "rationalist".
- Someone mentioned that it's about "not accepting things at face values". So we could simply say that a skeptic is a person who checks ie a CHECKER ..we could even use the image of a checker board as a logo.

- when the airline pilot is running through preflight checks would the cartoon character really say "No one likes a checker !"

- no checking is positive thing .. and so really is skepticism

If you ever fly Southwest Airlines, you know that the flight attendants frequently tell jokes, threaten to throw noisy children out of the plane, or do silly things like sing some of the standard announcements. About a month after 9-11, a prominent national newspaper criticized SW for this practice. The author claimed that he had several friends die in the terror attack, and that SW was making flying unsafe. Have you seen this in other areas, and what are your comments?

- Well Done : It's was an inpired choice of subject as it's made a great crossover program as it reaches out to a huge group of people who are not interested in skepticism. I can recommend it to a lot of people. Women are normally such a small part of the skeptic movement, but this edition shows that skepticism is relevant to them.

.. Although not perfect "Do nuns who have spent a lifetime covered really have the best skin ?"

I once had a big test I was studying for one night. I had everything memorized except one thing I kept confusing. While I slept, I dreamed all night that I was rehearsing what I had been studying, including the thing I had trouble on. The next day, I felt much more prepared and had finally memorized that one thing while I slept. What effect does sleep have on solidifying what we learned the day before? Would this apply to procedural memory as well?

Here's my question: What keeps YOU up at night? How does sleep loss affect your life, given that it's part of your area of study?

My question for her: In your capacity as director of a sleep laboratory, how much insomnia do you find can be mostly attributed to sleep hygeine as opposed to somatic causes?

If this is dumb and/or totally off topic to what she talks about, please don't ask it. ;-)

The effects of alcohol on acetaminophen toxicity are complicated, as both acute and chronic consumption (of both products) have to be examined. There's a good discussion in the comments of a blog post I did at Science-Based Medicine, starting with this comment:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5062#comment-51298

I was a little surprised to hear Dr. Tarzwell recommend Tylenol. Both are detoxified using the same cytochrome p450 and co-application can produce hepatotoxic metabolites. One study even shows that cessation of alcohol use while using acetominophen makes the breakdown of acetominophen even more toxic due to increased levels of the enzyme due to usual alcohol use. Some studies recommend no acetominphen use by those that regularly use alcohol. There is a rich literature on this that is too extensive to footnote here, so do the homework...

Clarification comment on Ben's comment regarding ghosts are "shadowy creatures / would be better to see in daylight" ... I've been told opposite. That they are dimly lit phenomenon that can only be seen at dark (which is why ghost-hunting occurs at night).

I've heard James Randi comment to the effect that "experts are among the easiest people to fool"--that is, experts who are speaking outside of their areas of expertise. Have you run across this in your investigations, when an "expert" has examined the same phenomenon you have, but has concluded incorrectly *because of* her or his expertise (at least in part)?

What was the most difficult investigation you have done to date?.. and What has been the biggest challange you have faced with respect to other investigation groups who are not anaylitical or scientific with their beliefs or investigative methods?

Derek: You rule! That is all.

Whoa!

On location Skeptically Speaking at TAM. I guess I have to crash that party.