Ponta de Lança Africano (Umbabarauma)–Jorge Ben

As my thesis writing continues, my posts will be brief but there’s a still of interesting stuff going on and being written out there. That’s why I love it when people contribute like Jessica’s piece last week trying to reconcile science and beliefs of Canada’s indigenous peoples.

The latest thing to catch my eye is this article from Alliance magazine asking whether The Gates Foundation (run my Microsoft founder Bill Gates) is a benevolent dictator. As the article points out, “the foundation’s annual spending on global public health – about $1.8 billion – is larger than the WHO’s yearly budget,” which means that there is an organization out there as big as the WHO that is, essentially, accountable to nobody. If they’re doing good overall, then we have a benevolent dictator and it’s a good thing. But despite the reinvigoration of the global health community and the huge amounts of funds raised, the Gates Foundation still receives some valid criticism, the most important being that if the Gates Foundation gives money to everyone (they even fund media now), who will be left to criticize the Gate Foundation? Overall, the article raises some important questions and is a great read.

No Comments »

Swear–Inc

Here in Canada we’re quite a ways from another federal election (although a few provincial are underway right now) but here’s an interesting study (via The Monkey Cage) that looked at a possible way to get people to vote more often:

In each experiment, participants completed one of two versions of a brief survey. In one version, a short series of questions referred to voting using a self-relevant noun (e.g., “How important is it to you to be a voter in the upcoming election?”); in the other, questions that were otherwise identical referred to voting using a verb (e.g., “How important is it to you to vote in the upcoming election?”).

Without getting too much into it, people who were asked how important it was “to be a voter” had 10% higher voter turnout than those asked, “to vote”. As Andrew Gelman of The Monkey Cage points out, there was no control group so we can only compare asking one question to asking the other. Whenever studies about likelihood to vote come out, I like to think about how the political landscape could change with increased voter participation but we don’t really know what types of people might be most influenced by this type of manipulation.

But why does one phrasing incite people to vote more than another? From the study:

Noun wording leads people to see attributes as more representative of a person’s essential qualities. In one study, children thought that a child described as “a carrot eater” liked carrots more than a child who “eats carrots whenever she can” (14). In another study, adults rated their own preferences as stronger and more stable when induced to describe them with nouns (e.g., “I am a Shakespeare-reader”) than with the related verbs (e.g., “I read Shakespeare a lot”) (15).

I tend to find this stuff eerie. The thought that the choice of a couple words spoken before the election could influence someone’s tendency to vote should reinforce the idea that we’re much more prone to outside influences than we probably like to think.

No Comments »

My family and I have loaned out over $400 on Kiva to people all over the world (with no deafults!) and it looks like we’re not alone. Here’s a video showing all Kiva loans across the world since Kiva’s inception (via: Curiosity Counts):

Intercontinental Ballistic Microfinance from Kiva Microfunds on Vimeo.

No Comments »

by Jessica

I’m loving the Carl Sagan book “The Varieties of the Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God”, starting at the back as Jeremy suggested. It’s interesting to read about his work in the context of the work I do with First Nations on environmental and wildlife management issues (and reading a lot about Inuit recently too). With that in mind, I re-read part of my friend Claude Peloquin’s master’s thesis, which discusses how East James Bay Crees cope with change and variability in the goose hunt. I came across this paragraph describing how Crees perceive the larger scale changes happening to their environment affecting the Canada goose migration patterns and, as a result, their success hunting Canada geese. I thought it was, in some ways, a neat contrast to Sagan’s scientific approach:

“Whereas there is no clear consensus on what the key factors underlying these changes are, there are many suggestions as to what they may or may not be. The collective understanding of this ‘web of factors’ suggests that resource users rely on a sound understanding and recognition of complexity, for which they constantly look into a wide range of signs and criteria indicators. They notice unusual events and exceptions, but they do not seek to precisely measure the trends of observed change. Their understanding does not require absolute proof of causal links. Instead these observations are understood within a relational context, in which correlations and synergies among factors are attributed varying degrees of plausibility. Causality itself remains uncertain.”

When you think about it, this perspective has strengths, particularly in its context (subsistence hunting). I am not an expert on science by any means, but the way I understand the scientific method to work, you cannot input an outrageously large numbers of variables and pull out of it a reliable account of relationships and correlation among them (didn’t our masters supervisors tell us this? Oh but we didn’t listen!). For the sake of clarity or certainty, you would look to provide a definitive account of the relationships between a small number of variables and work from there, repeating the exercise until you had a whole picture (as whole as it gets anyway). But that kind of knowledge would be less useful to Cree hunters, living in an ever changing environment where yesterday’s variables may no longer be applicable. Or rather, in the traditional subsistence lifestyle, the time it would take to figure those connections out with the certainty provided by the scientific method would detract too much from other activities required for subsistence. So an adaptive, relational understanding of the environment is required to pursue traditional subsistence activities rather than a “certain”, quantifiable understanding[i].

I guess what I’m driving at is that the importance or significance of a body of knowledge, of a way of knowing is relative to its context. Because of this, I am with Sagan 100% in his skepticism, atheism and deep respect for science (defining science as the application of the scientific method and the body of resulting findings), but I also feel that that shouldn’t detract from my equal respect for local and traditional knowledges, in fact much to the contrary. Science is one way of knowing useful for some contexts, there are others that are equally valid and vital in other contexts (or maybe even in the same contexts?). All have their strengths. We should not be discriminating among them, nor trying to validate the findings of the one by the standards of the other, but working together to build a strong mutual understanding and to expand the base of our collective knowledge.

Unfortunately, in the research I’ve done recently, it seems that mutual understanding is not of interest to some scientists (nor maybe to some traditional knowledge holders, though the former are heard more than the latter so it’s hard to tell). I’ve been reading a lot about the issue of polar bear management in northern Canada recently, for example, and have been deeply disappointed by the ease with which some leading biologists in the field summarily dismiss the validity of traditional knowledges (as politically correctly as possible, of course, which does little to take the sting out of the insult). The biologists make the case that polar bears are being deprived of their natural food sources because of climate change, and are spending more time in communities looking to feed. Inuit community members, on the contrary, believe that polar bear populations are generally increasing and that this is the cause of their more frequent presence in communities. Moreover, they are legitimately concerned about the overabundance of polar bears in towns and the risk they pose to young children. As a result Nunavut has won the right to increase its polar bear quota, even though the biologists’ research shows a strained and decreasing polar bear population ill equipped to sustain a larger harvest. My argument is this: even if the biologists are correct, and I must stress that in the context of the Canadian north there is no consensus on that issue, it is not enough to dismiss and override the evidence provided by traditional knowledge or the means by which that evidence is collected (which seems to be what some biologists are striving for), as this knowledge is equally valid. There needs to be a greater effort made by scientists working in indigenous contexts especially, but elsewhere as well, to understand the basis and methodologies of other ways of knowing. There needs to be a conscious effort to respectfully engage with those other ways of knowing, in a way that need not compromise the quality of scientific research, but in fact may ultimately enrich it. Based on Carl Sagan’s perspective at least, I don’t find this approach to be contrary to the principles of science, but rather perfectly aligned with its most central objective – to increase our knowledge of the world.

2 Comments »

So In Love–Jill Scott ft. Anthony Hamilton

Yes! Since the passing of Jack Layton, my mind has been on politics and political philosophy a lot and less on health and science. But I found something that allows me to tie the two together (kinda).

When I talk to people about politics they all seem to be in the middle or slightly on the left in the political spectrum. I study and work in academia so obviously I don’t meet many (any?) conservatives but there don’t seem to be many people that vocalize sympathy for the NDP despite the fact that they were the most popular party in this province last election. I began getting the feeling many people are uncomfortable being at an end of the political spectrum which then led me to wonder how many people vote for a centrist party (i.e. Liberals) because they believe in centrist policies and how many people vote for a centrist party just because they aren’t on an endpoint of the Canadian political spectrum? Of course, both reasons probably play a role as do many other things such as the charisma of the party leaders. But how many Canadians are just middle-of-the-roaders doing what Canadians do best: just trying to please everyone?

Before anyone feels the need to tell me Canada’s two biggest parties currently are on the extremes of the spectrum so my theory sort of falls apart, for a long time the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives ruled the political landscape from the middle. And like I said, there are other factors in play.

Turns out this phenomenon has been studied. Well, not really in politics but simply selecting one object from a lineup of five:

 The location of an item influences a person’s preference for that item, but it is unclear whether there is a preference for items located on the right or in the centre. In replication of the centre-stage effect, it was found that when participants were presented with a line of five pictures, they preferred pictures in the centre rather than at either end. This applies when the line of pictures was arranged horizontally or vertically and when participants selected from five pairs of identical socks arranged vertically.

I remember at some point reading that this same principle applies to prices of wine bottles where people’s desire to choose a price in the middle of  a range overrides their judgment of the value of a bottle of wine (I can’t find the reference!). For some reason people have an aversion to the ends of a spectrum, even when that spectrum is identical socks!

Which makes me wonder what would happen if Canada had an additional, small extreme right wing party, would that actually help the Conservative party (gasp!) by moving them away from the end of the spectrum. Same can be said of the NDP. But, then again, don’t we just pick our leaders by height anyway?

No Comments »

An Argument With Myself–Jens Lekman

 

NPR’s To The Best of our Knowledge has a series of episodes about science and meaning. Sounds good but if it’s anything like the Can Science be Sacred episode I just listened to, I don’t need to listen to anymore.

Firstly, the question is misleading, do they mean can science be sacred in the sense that some truths can be held without being questioned? That is true to a certain extent of axioms in math and is also true to a less formal extent of some things scientists believe without being familiar with all the evidence for it. The philosophy behind science–and let’s be clear I’m talking about the philosophy, not necessarily the way it’s always practiced–is that nothing is out of bounds for questioning so science can’t really be sacred in that sense. Thankfully, that isn’t where the went with the show.

Instead, they ask whether a sort of spirituality can be found in science. The answer, I think, is clearly yes. The EO Wilsons and Carl Sagans of this world are a testament to that although what can be called the spiritual side of science is often ignored by most. This podcast does a terrible job, however, at exploring this topic and thankfully they posted links to the individual segments of the show online because only the first is worth listening to. The second segment has some pseudo-scientist botanist talking about trees by spewing a bunch of too-vague-to-be-useful inanities about trees including such medical advice as playing with black walnuts can protect children from leukemia for up to a year. Whoa! That is beyond crazy. I’m sure she means well and there’s no harm in playing with black walnuts but there’s no evidence whatsoever for that. Stick to the first segment which includes both EO Wilson and Stuart Kauffman, both of which have, I feel, made important contributions to making science more ‘sacred’.

No Comments »

I spent my Saturday afternoon at a public viewing of Jack Layton’s funeral. I expected it to be good, I was particularly looking forward to hearing Stephen Lewis who is always a well-spoken and rousing speaker. But I also expected some less interesting parts where I would be looking outside wondering what I was doing watching a funeral of someone I’d never met on television.

I was blown away. Not only did I not long to be outdoors, at times I forgot that I wasn’t actually in Toronto at the funeral. Lewis’ eulogy was incredibly inspiring as was the eulogy of the Reverend Brent Hawkes. Martin Deschamps, Steven Page and Lorraine each perfectly reflected the mood of the funeral when it came their turns to sing. Below I’ll post Lewis’ and Hawkes’ eulogies.

Lewis’ closing was particularly stirring. He quoted from Arundhati Roy:

Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I can hear her breathing.

No Comments »

 
Gorgeous Georgie–Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks

 

Sam Harris is nothing if not direct when speaking his mind. While I agree with a lot of what he says, I would have thought that, by now, he would have said everything he could have said that would have offended his fans and readers. But he apparently just hit the jackpot of offensiveness recently when he suggested that billionaires–yes billionaires–should pay higher taxes:

You can declare the world’s religions to be cesspools of confusion and bigotry, you can argue that all drugs should be made legal and that free will is an illusion. You can even write in defense of torture. But I assure you that nothing will rile and winnow your audience like the suggestion that billionaires should contribute more of their wealth to the good of society.

His post clarifies his position without going back on what he originally said and contains one gem of a paragraph:

And lurking at the bottom of this morass one finds flagrantly irrational ideas about the human condition. Many of my critics pretend that they have been entirely self-made. They seem to feel responsible for their intellectual gifts, for their freedom from injury and disease, and for the fact that they were born at a specific moment in history. Many appear to have absolutely no awareness of how lucky one must be to succeed at anything in life, no matter how hard one works. One must be lucky to be able to work. One must be lucky to be intelligent, to not have cerebral palsy, or to not have been bankrupted in middle age by the mortal illness of a spouse.

Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and we did not earn it. Many good people have been extraordinarily unlucky—and they did not deserve it. And yet I get the distinct sense that if I asked some of my readers why they weren’t born with club feet, or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments. There is a stunning lack of insight into the unfolding of human events that passes for moral and economic wisdom in some circles. And it is pernicious. Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. This conviction is, at the very least, unproven. And there are many reasons to believe that it is dangerously wrong.

I know, I know, I’ll get back to talking about science and health soon but sometimes I like to reflect on the goals I think science and health should be serving.

1 Comment »

Why is science such a powerful tool? If we lived in a world where our senses never deceived us and we had the superhuman ability to look at thing objectively, we probably wouldn’t–well, no, we’d still need science but it would just have a different role. But part of science’s role is to try and eliminate our biases and faults in our perception. That’s why I love learning about new ways that our brain deceives us. The Guardian had this article about how images held in your memory can influence your visual perception. That means that, in some contexts at least, what you see isn’t just a product of what you’re looking at, but what you looked at before. That’s weird.

The shade illusion is another example of our perception run amok and his video is the best example of it I’ve ever seen (there will likely be an ad before the video):

No Comments »

I’m in a period where I’m straddling the vibrant optimism of being young and the cynicism that comes all too often with age. As my friends, family, co-workers, everyone I meet, get older, it seems that the passion behind certain ideals wanes–and understandably so. Party time is over. It’s all punch in, punch out, bring the car to the mechanic, do we have enough diapers or should I pick some up? Ok, those came out completely at random but you get the point. There are plenty of reasons to start thinking more about the technicalities of life rather than the bigger picture.

And that’s why I get it when people’s eyes start glaze over when I start talking about how the exorbitant profits pharmaceutical companies make isn’t ethical and increases differential access to health care. Hey–did I just see your eyes glaze over? I get it. There are enough things to think about without worrying about other people’s problems. That’s fine. But please, please don’t confuse that feeling with the feeling that tells you that optimism or being idealistic is a product of naivete and not the product of personal convictions based on sound ethics and principles.

I think, at some point, I started down that road toward cynicism. I started being convinced that I was being naive. That, yeah, it’d be nice if life were more fair–that people were rewarded for working hard but also that the opportunities to work hard were available to all–but can that ever really be achieved? Layton’s charisma was a reminder that–and I can’t think of a non-cliched way of saying this though I’m sure Jack would–we shouldn’t underestimate ourselves or our country. For a man who believed in justice and equality and who was all too aware of the injustices and inequalities some Canadians face, he remained forever optimistic that, if there is a place in the world that can achieve the kind of goals he had in mind, it was Canada. He embodied the fact that optimism isn’t naivete, quite the opposite, optimism is hope. It’s cynicism that is giving up.

And for that reason, it’s all to appropriate that Jack Layton’s letter to Canadians ended with a paragraph that I feel should be printed on our money or incorporated in our national anthem because they represent the best in Canadians:

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

1 Comment »