Infinite in All Directions is The Wire‘s science newsletter. Click here to subscribe and receive a digest of the most interesting science news and analysis from around the web every Monday, 10 am.
Reading science right
Erik Klemetti gives a quick overview of whatever is ailing science communication at the moment – and how it’s important that you, as a reader, be savvy enough to sidestep the effects of the ailments. For example:
So, be careful when you read science in the news. You should take sensational conclusions with a grain of salt the size of an Gerald Ford-class aircraft carrier. Some ways you can be confident:
- Does the article link back to the original study?
- Do they speak to scientists that are not part of the original study?
- Do they present the findings as certainty or hypotheses that need continued work?
- Is there an indication of the size of the data set from which the findings were made?
- Does the article just feel like it’s trying to makes things bigger than they seem (is it believable?)
I’d like to add one more point to this list: What’re the odds that a big finding is coming along in science? A ‘big finding’ the way some mediapersons like comes about way less often in science, which advances incrementally. And don’t let those people tell you that that kind of incremental progress is not good enough to cover – it is and has always been. After all, it’s such progress that’s given us every damned result. If anything, the media has a responsibility to drive home that point.
Annotated science writing
My science writer and friend Shannon Hall is the managing editor of Storygram, which I’m recommending that you go check out for its brilliant, why-didn’t-I-think-of-it-first concept: to have successful science writers annotate science articles that have been published at various outlets. The annotations are in-line (i.e. they appear adjacent to the words they’re addressing) and are written in a didactic style. In the process, what appears is a criticism of the piece that readers can learn from and emulate – as readers or as writers.
Here’s an example:
At 2:46 p.m. on March 11, 2011, the Pacific Plate, just off Japan’s northeast coast, suddenly thrust downward, unleashing a monstrous, 9.0-magnitude earthquake that rocked the country for the next six minutes. The massive Tohoku quake and resulting tsunami are believed to have killed at least 16,000 people and injured 6,000 more. Another 2,600 people are still missing and presumed dead. The quake was the most powerful to ever strike Japan, and was the fourth-largest ever recorded. It also was the first earthquake to be heard in outer space, and was the most expensive natural disaster in human history, generating $235 billion in total damage. Leading with numbers could potentially sound boring; it also breaks a general rule about starting with a specific, human connection to the reader. But I think in no other way could Ghorayshi show you immediately that the scale of this earthquake was inhumanly large. Sentence after sentence, the numbers keep coming and pile up on each other until you think, “Yes, that’s big.”
But there was a silver lining, if you could call it that: Tohoku was also the first time that Japanese citizens were given the precious, if limited, gift of time. And yay, this story isn’t going where you’d expect it to! After that buildup, you’d expect a story about the heroism of recovery, not a 60-second early-warning system. I think of this as a knight’s-move structure: Here’s where you think this is headed … but whoops! We’re turning left. You can get away with this only if you know exactly where you’re going—otherwise the reader just gets confused—which I’m betting Ghorayshi does. (Note added later: When I wrote this comment, I hadn’t read the subhed, signaling that this is a story about California earthquakes. I never read subheds. If I had, I wouldn’t have been as happily surprised about where Ghorayshi went as I would have been about the unconventional place where she began, with an earthquake not in California but in Japan. These little knight’s-moves give nonfiction stories—which often follow predictable plots—some of the unexpected delight of real life.)
Statistical common sense
This isn’t a new or contemporaneous piece of news but something I’ve always had to struggle to come to terms with: the Monty Hall problem. If you haven’t heard of it (which, believe me, would have to be a bit strange), this is Alan Bellows:
There is a classic mathematical nuisance known as the Monty Hall problem which can be hard to wrap the mind around. It is named after the classic game show “Let’s Make a Deal,” where a contestant was allowed to choose one of three doors, knowing that a valuable prize waited behind one, and worthless prizes behind the others.
On the show, once the contestant made their choice, Monty Hall (the host) opened one of the other doors, revealing one of the worthless prizes. He would then open the contestant’s chosen door to reveal whether they picked correctly. The Monty Hall problem asks, what if the contestant were allowed to change her door choice after she saw the worthless prize? Would it be to her advantage to switch doors? In other words, if the contestant guesses that the new car lay behind door #1, and Monty opened door #2 to reveal a goat, is the new car more likely to be behind door #1, or door #3?
Common sense dictates that switching shouldn’t make a difference – but the correct answer is that you should switch every time. To get the hang of why, take a look at this simulator put together by the folks at Damn Interesting. It simulates the actions of two players – A (who never switches doors) and B (who always switches doors). As hundreds of scenarios are played out, you realise where you might be getting it wrong.
When you switch doors, your chances of success move up from 33% to 67%. So even if you switched and then found a goat behind a door, the switch-everytime method would still be the right way to go because it provides better outcomes over multiple attempts.
Since you’re so into Infinite in All Directions (sign up here), you could also check out the amazing stuff that appeared in The Wire recently.
- A PSLV launch happened about 48 minutes ago. I wrote about the seven reasons the launch is noteworthy (check out #4).
- Sangeetha Balakrishnan wrote a quick primer on what the Ig Nobel Prizes are and how they make for an important teaching moment in this day and age. Quick take: “The postmodern science student wants more – and so the postmodern science teacher brings in the Ig Nobels when she teaches electrochemistry.”
- Janaki Lenin, Meghna Uniyal and Abi Vanak had an important, if provocative, argument to make: if dogs threaten the safety of people on the streets (particularly in India), should we kill the dogs? Because clearly Indian administrators and welfare workers are doing nothing to solve this problem.
- Curiosity among curiosities, both the states’ and the national health policies in India make no reference to rare genetic disorders. One effect of this has been that, earlier this month, the country’s thalassaemia patients were deprived of a life-saving drug.
- Divers found human remains in the famous Antikythera shipwreck, over 2,000 years old and off the coast of Greece. Researchers think the DNA in the remains can be reliably tested. Would the answers provide any clues about whence the enigmatic Antikythera mechanism?
Joanne Cohn’s mailing list
Chances are you haven’t heard of Joanne Cohn. She’s an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1989, she started an email list through which she distributed pre-prints of scientific papers to people who were interested in reading them before they got published. As she writes,
Slightly later on, I learned how to use an email exploder. I began to systematically expand the number of names on the list I was sending papers to. I also expanded the role of the mailing list from just a list which received papers I had, to a group of people who both received and contributed papers. In this way, it became a way for people to exchange papers more generally. I started asking people I knew to send me their papers. I also asked people I didn’t know, if I saw their papers and their emails were available, for their papers (and simultaneously invited them to join the list). People also requested to join the list who heard of it via word of mouth; I would add them and also request them to send their papers. Often papers would go to one person who would print it out for the group (although some research groups requested me to send papers to all members individually, which I did). Eventually (by 1991 summer) it was reaching several countries and institutions. I believe it had about 180 people (a small number by today’s standards!) and reached over 20 countries.
In 1991, Paul Ginsparg, a friend of Cohn’s, automated the system by building a network through which registered users could add new papers while others could access or download them. The network – i.e. a less labour-intensive version of what was essentially Cohn’s mailing list – went online on August 14, 1991, under the name ‘arXiv’. Today, the arXiv server contains over a million pre-print papers with over 8,000 submissions a month.
Thank you, Joanne!
Saving alien souls
Fantastic plot-point right here (Dan Brown, hope you’re listening): if we find aliens, then will the Church be obliged to convert them into Christianity?
I’d quote the entire article, by Ian Lovett in the WSJ, if I could, but here’s the proto-problem as it were:
“It’s just planet Earth that has spiritual beings in need of redemption,” said Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist who founded Reasons to Believe, a ministry that seeks to show that science supports Christian scripture. “That doesn’t rule out dolphins or grass or bacteria on another planet,” he said, but he doesn’t expect to find life anywhere else in the universe. He added, “It’s not Jesus Christ dying on 1,000 planets.”
Some theologians argue that Ms. Vanderwall’s observation—that the Bible “teaches us to be good people”—is precisely why Christians shouldn’t plan to baptize alien life-forms. The Gospel tells of the fall and salvation of humanity, they say, not of other beings on some far-off world. Other theologians posit that intelligent extraterrestrials would have their own relationships with God.
Beyond the theological questions lie serious practical obstacles. “Communication would take a long time, obviously,” said Deborah Haarsma, president of BioLogos, a group that promotes the idea that Christianity and science are in harmony. Even if communication were possible, she added, “Can we communicate about something as profound as God?”
See your irony, raise you a gamble
Companies operating cruise-liners to remote locations, especially where receding glaciers are exposing long-preserved ecosystems, have an easy pitch: the trip, according to one, takes the traveller “through majestic waterways, spectacular glaciers, and towering fjords… where nature is truly wild and landscapes are absolutely breathtaking.” Well-written, but oh the irony.
According to Smithsonian Mag, environmentalists were quick to point out that taking the cruise would add to the carbon footprint, which in turn would drive global warming and melt those glaciers more. A somewhat more touchy peg to have this discussion over would be the annual Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, when leaders jet across the world in their private planes to a meeting and talk about polluting the world less.
Clearly, it’s a question of priorities: there’s no way leaders are going to travel in one big plane with everyone else together, but can a person who’s never observed the effects of climate change first-hand have enough of a moving experience to want to work on finding a solution after taking the cruise?
Judith Stark, a professor at Seton Hall University who specializes in applied ethics, thinks about these questions all the time. “Going to these really remote places, what does that do to the ecological integrity to the places themselves?” she says. “It’s really a matter of balancing the value of that experience and the educational opportunity of that experience with the inherent value of nature and species that are not simply there for our use and our entertainment. To try and balance those two is difficult.”
For people living in developed countries—especially people that live away from the coast and aren’t familiar with coastal flooding or sea level rise—the consequences of climate change can feel far off and impersonal. Traveling to a place impacted by climate change can bring it home. If a journey has enough of an impact that it causes someone to make changes in their daily life, or gets them talk to friends and family about the dangers of climate change, Stark says, then that trip could be considered “morally acceptable.”
“Travelling to a place impacted by climate change can bring it home.” Can it really? People who visit these places experience a sense of awe that, scientific research has shown, opens them up to being more mindful of their environment as well as to new information. At the same time, repeated doses of awe can blunt the effects of the sensation and make the person experiencing it feel more alienated – at least according to Dacher Keltner, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Based on Keltner’s review of how humans experience awe and the effect it has on them across various cultures, Michelle Nijhuis concludes for The Atlantic that, “Only with the luxury of distance, it seems, can we experience awe as awesome in every sense.”
If you’re going on that cruise, maybe just do it once.
Go big but never go homeo
I cannot recommend this article by Edzard Ernst in the Guardian enough, where he clearly and bluntly describes how the weight of evidence is against homeopathy being anything more than a placebo. The piece was published after “a comprehensive, transparent and evidence-based review from a panel of experts who are competent and free of conflicts of interest” in Australia found nothing to suggest homeopathy could be an effective system of medicine.
Ernst is a British academician specialising in the study and practices of alternative medicine. He’s been writing about the dangers of pseudo-scientific medical treatments, particularly homeopathy, on his popular blog as well. I highly recommend you follow it (as well as Andy Lewis’s Quackometer) for authoritative takedowns of the latest in medical BS.
If you’re going to look at the future of space exploration as a problem of engineering, you’re going to find it boring. At least, that’s the takeaway from Freeman Dyson’s new essay in the New York Review of Books. Dyson is a celebrated theoretical physicist and science communicator. (This newsletter is named for a phrase in one of his books, also of the same name.)
Actually, it’s a review – of three books, and finished with in the dullest fashion in the first three-quarters of the piece, after which Dyson embarks on a speculative adventure. Specifically, he recommends paying more attention to biotechnology, to the things we will do after we’ve built a rocket and gotten from point A to point B. Sample this from the full:
From this point on, everything I say is pure speculation, a sketch of a possible future suggested by [Konstantin] Tsiolkovsky’s ideas. Sometime in the next few hundred years, biotechnology will have advanced to the point where we can design and breed entire ecologies of living creatures adapted to survive in remote places away from Earth. I give the name Noah’s Ark culture to this style of space operation. A Noah’s Ark spacecraft is an object about the size and weight of an ostrich egg, containing living seeds with the genetic instructions for growing millions of species of microbes and plants and animals, including males and females of sexual species, adapted to live together and support one another in an alien environment.
After the inevitable mistakes and failures, we will have acquired the knowledge and skill to build such Noah’s Arks and put them gently into suitable places in the sky. Suitable places where life could take root are planets and moons, and also the more numerous cold dark objects far from the sun, where air is absent, water is frozen into ice, and gravity is weak. The purpose is no longer to explore space with unmanned or manned missions, but to expand the domain of life from one small planet to the universe. Each Noah’s Ark will grow into a living world of creatures, as diverse as the creatures of Earth but different. For each world it may be possible to develop genetic and other instructions for growing a protected habitat where humans can live in an Earth-like environment. The expansion of human societies into the universe will be a small part of the expansion of life. After the expansion of life and the expansion of human societies have started, the new ecologies will continue to evolve in ways that we cannot plan or predict. The humans in remote places will then also have the freedom to evolve, so that they can move out of protected habitats and walk freely on the worlds where they have settled.
Like what you read? Subscribe to the newsletter.