Theory vs Theory

This is the third in a series of postings by guest blogger, Arlin Stoltzfus. You can read the introduction to the series at: Introduction to "The Curious Disconnect". The first part is at: The "Mutationism" Myth I. The Monk's Lost Code and the Great Confusion. Arlin is challenging the status quo in modern evolutionary theory. He's not alone in this challenge but it's important to distinguish between kooks who don't know what they're talking about and serious thinkers who have something to say. Arlin is going to explain to you why everything you thought you knew about mutationism is wrong. In this article we learn about theories.

Please pay attention.

---

The Curious Disconnect

Our journey to map out the Curious Disconnect-- the gap between how we think about evolution and how we might think if we were freed from historical baggage-- began last time with part 1 of The Mutationism Myth.

Before continuing with part 2, I would like to take a detour. Issues surrounding "evolutionary theory", and evolutionary theories, are going to be coming up again and again. In fact, I can see these issues emerging already in The Mutationism Myth. So, before we get bogged down in confusion and disagreement, I would like to begin a discussion of "theory" and "theories". We'll return to the Mutationism Myth next time.

An updated version of the post below will be maintained at www.molevol.org/cdblog/theory_vs_theory (Arlin Stoltzfus, ©2010)

Theory1 vs theory2

What does it mean to invoke "evolutionary theory"? Is "neo-Darwinism" (or "Darwinism") a theory, a school of thought, or something else? What gives a theory structure and meaning (e.g., axioms, themes, formulae)? What is the relationship between mathematical formalisms and other statements of "theory" (e.g., what does it mean for a lecturer to show a key equation of quantitative evolutionary genetics and assert "this is neo-Darwinism")? Who decides how a theory is defined, or redefined (e.g., is Ohta's "nearly neutral" theory an alternative to, or a variant of, Kimura's Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution)?

Confusion regarding "theory" and "theories" is going to be an ongoing topic of attention in The Curious Disconnect. As noted in the Introduction, we're in an enormous muddle. The way to get out of this muddle is to take some time to build common understanding, learn some useful terms, and establish ground rules.

In this post, we'll begin the process of developing a shared framework for productively discussing "theory" and "theories". We will begin by addressing an ambiguity in the use of the word "theory", partly because this particular ambiguity is important, and partly as an exercise in addressing semantics. ⁰

Definitions

Dictionaries provide definitions that can be helpful to clarify the meanings of words and the complications of their usage. Definitions can be descriptive, telling us how a word is used, or prescriptive, telling us how it ought to be used. But, as most of us don't like to be told what we ought to do, I suspect that you share my belief in studying how words are used, in order to determine their denotations (what the word says) and connotations (what the word hints or implies). The English dictionaries used in America typically agree: the definitions that they provide reflect patterns of common usage, not the decrees of authorities.

A difficulty with dictionaries arises given that, within an isolated community, e.g., a scientific discipline, words can take on special meanings. So, dictionaries can be helpful, with the proviso that we need to be sensitive to the special use of terms within a discipline.

The discipline-specific use of a term can be nailed down by looking at examples of usage. For evolutionary biology, the discipline-specific use of a term is to be found in the research literature, and also in the secondary literature of monographs, textbooks, and other disciplinary writings.

Two meanings of "theory"

A good dictionary will distinguish several different senses of the word "theory", including the following two that I believe are the most relevant for our discourse:

1) a major conjecture or systematic hypothesis to account for observed phenomena, as in "prion theory of disease" or "Lamarck's theory of evolution";

2) the body of abstract principles relevant to some discipline, methodology or problem area, as in "music theory" or "population genetics theory"

That is, a theory₁ is a grand hypothesis, a conjecture about the actual world, while a theory₂ is a collection of principles or models or other formalisms that might apply only in an imagined world. Fisher (1930) famously said that "No practical biologist interested in sexual reproduction would be led to work out the detailed consequences experienced by organisms having three or more sexes; yet what else should he do if he wishes to understand why the sexes are, in fact, always two?" Theoreticians aren't necessarily good with facts, so we'll ignore that the sexes (in the sense of mating types) are not, in fact, always two. Fisher clearly encourages us to work out formalisms for imagined or hypothetical cases. The collection of all these models or formalisms about sexes would constitute the theory₂ of sexes. A theory₁ of sexes might propose a causal explanation for the actual historic phenomenon of the origin and maintenance of sexual reproduction in animals, addressing such issues as the heterogametic basis of sex determination. ¹

These two meanings are not just recognized in dictionaries, but are established in scientific usage. Gilbert's "Exon Theory of Genes" (Gilbert 1987) is the conjecture that genes evolved from exons (i.e., large protein-coding genes emerged by joining primordial exon-minigenes). The prion theory₁ of disease clearly revolves around a conjecture that there are actual diseases caused by actual prions. By contrast, population genetics theory₂ is not the conjecture that populations have genetics; likewise, the theory₂ of stochastic processes is not a conjecture that stochastic processes occur, but consists of a body of abstract principles that might be applicable to such stochastic processes as might occur in some actual or imagined universe.

The use of the abstract noun, as in "let's talk about theory" as opposed to "let's talk about { a | the | this } theory", often signals the use of theory₂. For instance, the title of a report by the National Academy of Sciences on "The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology" signals a likely emphasis on theory₂, and indeed, the report emphasizes the development of formalisms more than conjectures, and says that "a useful way to define theory in biology is as a collection of models", clearly a reference to theory₂. The report also mixes in some references to theories₁.

Obviously, there is a connection between scientific theories₁ and scientific theory₂. One way of thinking about the connection is that the abstract principles of theory₂, when suitably limited by measurable or observable quantities from the actual world, can provide the basis of a theory₁, and conversely, theories₁ draw on theory₂ for logical structure. Kimura's Neutral Theory (Kimura 1983) provides a clear example because the theory₁ and theory₂ were developed separately: Kimura combined pre-existing theory₂ (of stochastic population genetics) with the concrete assertion that the values of certain quantities (relating to population sizes and mutant effects) were such that, for DNA and protein sequences, neutral evolution by mutation and random fixation would be far more common than anyone had imagined previously. The definition of effectively neutral alleles (perpetually misunderstood by critics) and the probability of fixation under pure drift were known to the canonical founders of population genetics ((Wright 1931); ch. IV of (Fisher 1930); appendix of (Haldane 1932)). Another indication of the distinctness of theory₁ and theory₂ is that opponents of the Neutral Theory₁, who deny the truth of the theory₁, are nonetheless quite happy to make use of its theoretical₂ infrastructure (Kreitman 1996).

Development and application of theory₁ and theory₂

We treat the two kinds of "theory" differently, and rightly so.

A theory₁ contains a major supposition or unproved conjecture about the world. Kimura's Neutral Theory is the conjecture that most changes at the "molecular level" represent the random fixation of effectively neutral alleles. Darwin proposed, but could not prove, that all large-scale evolutionary changes were built from infinitesimal increments of change that emerged by a process of hereditary "fluctuation". A theory₁ takes risks: in Popperian terms, its subject to empirical refutation; in the words of Huxley, a beautiful theory₁ can be "killed by an ugly fact."

The relevant standard of validity for theory₂ is not verisimilitude (trueness to life), but consistency: the principles derived in the theory are consistent with its assumptions. Importantly, new principles added to a body of theory₂ are consistent with previous principles, except in the sense that a body of theory₂ may be subdivided into branches that cover non-overlapping universes. If they are not, a logical error has occurred.

While new theory₂ is consistent with existing theory₂, theories₁ often stimulate interest precisely because they conflict with previous theories₁. Of course theories₁ strive to be internally consistent, but in biology at least, theories₁ are not axiomatic, and often encompass ambiguities that make rigorous analysis difficult. A theory₁ can be brought down by a contradiction that arises internally, e.g., one part can be found to contradict another part.

While a theory₁ is about the actual world, and thus is judged by verisimilitude, principles of theory₂ need not apply to the real world. Indeed, no amount of conflicting data will cause us to discard a principle of theory₂ that is properly derived: a beautiful piece of theory₂ cannot be killed by an ugly fact. Fisher's fundamental theorem either is logically valid or is not logically valid, independent of any facts.

Digressions

The distinction between theory₁ and theory₂ is hidden in the ambiguous word "theory", but I think it comes out more clearly in specific word-derivatives and grammatical usages that seem to favor one meaning more than the other. I mentioned above that the abstract noun typically signals theory₂. I'm also convinced that when we refer to a "theoretician", we typically do not mean someone like Tom Cavalier-Smith whose scientific output consists of bold conjectures or systematic hypotheses (we might call such people "theorizers"), but instead someone like Joe Felsenstein whose work focuses on mathematical or algorithmic foundations, i.e., theory₂. Its a rare scientist, it seems to me, who is productive both as a theoretician and as a theorizer (e.g., Kimura, Hamilton).

Neither meaning of theory would cause us to relinquish the label "theory" for a proposition that lacks verisimilitude. Clearly the propositions of theory₂ do not have to apply to the real world. And a theory₁ is a conjecture, not necessarily a true conjecture. Thus, even opponents of the Neutral Theory₁, who believe that the theory does not fit the actual world, still refer to it as The Neutral Theory (Kreitman 1996).

I mention this because there is an absurd tendency in the literature of evolution advocacy, e.g., NCSE's screeds, to say that, because scientists reserve the word "theory" only for constructions that have been extensively verified and are accepted as true, the use of "theory of evolution" among scientists means that evolution is well supported.

This argument clearly is false, and the proof does not depend on the theory₁ vs. theory₂ distinction, but only on the fact that scientists habitually choose to refer to Kimura's theory or Lamarck's theory or Gilbert's theory as a "theory", even if its known to be wrong or is considered deeply suspect. This pattern holds, not just in biology, but in other disciplines. In astronomy, the geocentric theory remains a theory though it has been abandoned; in physics, the phlogiston theory, or the aether theory of light propagation (roughly, the theory that space must be substantive in order for waves to propagate in it) remain theories even though they were abandoned. So, write to the NCSE and tell them to stop using this lame argument. Really, we can do better than that.

The NCSE fallacy seems to arise from mixing together the proposed explanation of phenomena aspect of theory₁ and the accepted as valid aspect of theory₂. This is suggested from the way that NCSE's screed cites the NAS report on theory₂ (the same one that I quoted above) as though it provided a definition of theory qua "well substantiated explanation", which definitely is not the same as "collection of models".

Lets try to sort this out in terms of the distinction between theory₁ and theory₂. Evolutionists have recourse to a body of theory₂ (formalisms or models or principles), ranging from purely phenomenological models of branching and character-state change used in phylogenetics, to the breeder's equation used in quantitative genetics, to detailed formulas for population-genetics processes, and so on. We accept the validity of these abstractions in the theory₂ sense of validity, i.e., we accept that they are derived without error, so as to be logically consistent with their assumptions. This body of abstractions, principles, or formalisms (in NAS parlance, this collection of models) is evolutionary theory₂.

But saying that this theory₂ is valid is not at all the same thing as claiming that its true in the sense of verisimilitude; and claiming that it has verisimilitude is not the same as saying that its complete, in the sense of sufficiently accounting for the phenomena of evolution. For instance, the theory₂ of quantitative evolutionary genetics is based on the assumption of infinitesimal variation, but the theory₂ itself does not claim that all traits, nor even any single trait, evolved in this manner-- that would be a theory₁ issue. Kimura's diffusion equations are a part of population genetics theory₂ that provides a way to work out the probability of fixation of alleles under ideal conditions, but it doesn't assert that the results are applicable to any particular case. Got it?

Homework

The wikipedia entry on theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) has a "List of Notable Theories" that clearly mixes up theories₁ or grand conjectures (the cell theory, the phlogiston theory) with theories₂ or bodies of abstract principles (music theory, extreme value theory). What are some other clear examples of theory₁ and theory₂ in this list? Which examples are difficult to classify (and what does one learn from those)?

Who, besides Kimura and Hamilton, was productive as both a theoretician and as a theorizer?

Think of a few theories in science, ideally in life sciences. I'm going to assert that they are not axiomatic, i.e., they are not completely encompassed by precisely stated propositions. Given this, how do we really know what defines the theory? If we know a theory from the verbal statements in a body of literature (i.e., "things people say"), what is the relationship of an individual expression (e.g., a paper, a monograph, a quotation) to the theory? Is it the instantiation of a platonic form or essence? How do we get to the essence? Is the distribution of expressions of a theory its "reaction norm", representing environmental noise in the expression of an underly structure (the theory's "genotype")?

The Modern Synthesis as theory₁: into the memory hole

The folks at NCSE and wikipedia are not the only ones blurring the issues. The Modern Synthesis or modern neo-Darwinism ² was put forth originally as a falsifiable theory₁ of evolution, but evolutionists themselves don't treat it that way anymore. For instance, in Maynard Smith's defense of "neo-Darwinism" (Maynard Smith 1969), the only kinds of falsifying observations he can imagine are cases that seem to introduce supernatural forces, e.g., if the spots on a fish always appeared in prime numbers, he says this would contradict neo-Darwinism. He does not imagine variation-induced trends, discontinuous jumps based on individual mutations, or extensive neutral evolution as contradictions of "neo-Darwinism", though these ideas were rejected by the architects of modern neo-Darwinism. Maynard Smith makes the claim in regard to the Neutral Theory that "I have never seen any reason why, as a naive Darwinist, I should reject this theory" (Maynard Smith 1995). It seems that, for Maynard Smith, "neo-Darwinism" is not a theory₁ at all, but merely indicates a commitment to scientific materialism, i.e., seeking natural causes through observation and experiment.

Other authoritative sources suggest that the Modern Synthesis is no longer viewed as a falsifiable conjecture. In Hull's Encyclopedia of Evolution article on the history of evolutionary thought (Hull 2002), the Modern Synthesis is presented as an open-ended "theory" that merely assumes the principle of selection and the rules of genetics, and which has swallowed up the neutral theory along with all other useful ideas:

"Any criticism of the synthetic theory that turned out to have some substance was subsumed in a modified version of this theory. Instead of being a weakness, this ability to change is one of the chief strengths of the synthetic theory of evolution. As in the case of species, scientific theories evolve" (p. E16)

Hull's conception of the Modern Synthesis sounds more like an extensible set of principles, theory₂, than the theory₁ of Mayr, Simpson, Ayala, etc (which is extensible in some ways but closed and falsifiable in others). I'm not necessarily going to say its wrong for scientists to decide that the Modern Synthesis is no longer a theory₁, but can someone please tell me when, and on what basis, did we make this decision? Is there a citation for that? And who decided that we wouldn't tell Richard Dawkins, leaving the poor fellow stuck in a time warp defending the original Modern Synthesis? ³

But I'm getting ahead of myself. I started The Curious Disconnect with the The Mutationism Myth because 1) most evolutionists don't understand how the Modern Synthesis came into existence as a theory₁ that entails risky conjectures, and 2) the mutationist challenge provides the definitive historical proof that the Modern Synthesis is a theory₁ and not just a commitment to selection and the rules of genetics. The historical record will show clearly that the mutationists or "Mendelians" presented a workable synthesis of selection and the rules of genetics, and that their view was rejected by the architects of the Modern Synthesis. Once we find out why, we will understand what makes the Modern Synthesis a theory₁.

Literature cited

Dawkins, R. 2007. Review: The Edge of Evolution. Pp. 2. International Herald Tribune, Paris.

Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press, London.

Gilbert, W. 1987. The exon theory of genes. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 52:901-905.

Haldane, J. B. S. 1932. The Causes of Evolution. Longmans, Green and Co., New York.

Hull, D. L. 2002. History of Evolutionary Thought. Pp. E7-E16 in M. Pagel, ed. Encyclopedia of Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.

Kimura, M. 1983. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kreitman, M. 1996. The neutral theory is dead. Long live the neutral theory. Bioessays 18:678-683.

Maynard Smith, J. 1969. The Status of Neo-Darwinism. Pp. 82-89 in C. H. Waddington, ed. Towards a Theoretical Biology 2. Sketches. Edinburgh Universeity Press, Edinburgh.

Maynard Smith, J. 1995. Life at the Edge of Chaos? Pp. 28-30. New York Review of Books, New York.

Wright, S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97.

Notes

⁰ I thank Dr. Mike Coulthart for originally drawing my attention to the importance of this distinction.

¹ If we were to propose just that the sexes are always 2 in number, simply because that is what we have seen in the past, I would call this an empirical generalization or "law". Sometimes "theory" is used for such a generalization, but that usage does not correspond to either meaning of "theory" addressed here.

² I'm using "modern neo-Darwinism" as a synonym for "Modern Synthesis". Neo-Darwinism (for our purposes, Darwinism 1.2) is the pre-Mendelian theory of Weissman and Wallace emphasizing the supreme power of selection and infinitesimal variation to build adaptation (and rejecting Darwin's reliance on Lamarckism). The Modern Synthesis (Darwinism 2.0) comes from this tradition and is often called "neo-Darwinism", though "modern neo-Darwinism" is clearer.

³ Kidding aside, its quite useful to have a scholar still defending the actual Modern Synthesis. For instance, in his attempt to rebut Behe (Dawkins 2007), Dawkins claims that mathematical geneticists "have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation" and that Behe's critique based on the idea that evolution depends on specific mutations would mean that "the entire corpus of mathematical genetics, from 1930 to today, is flat wrong". In making this claim, Dawkins is correctly representing the Modern Synthesis view that (due to the buffering effect of the "gene pool") evolution does not depend on the rate of new mutations, a principle that he believes to be an infallible theoretical result.

---

Chris Mooney vs Atheists: Part XXXIV

 
Chris Mooney is at it again. His latest posting sounds ominous: Are Top Scientists Really So Atheistic? Look at the Data.

Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University; we cited her work on the topic of science and religion in Unscientific America. Now, she is out with a book that is going to seriously undercut some widespread assumptions out there concerning the science religion relationship.

Unfortunately, Chris doesn't present any data because he's not a scientist. Data really isn't his thing.

I don't have a copy of the book so I can't check it myself. Fortunately, Razib Khan, one of Chris Mooney's fellow bloggers on the Discover website, was able to find some of the data [Scientists as “spiritual atheists”].

Let's be clear about one thing. This is not a poll of scientists. It's a poll of American scientists. The title of Ecklund's book, Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think, is somewhat misleading.¹ Here's two charts from the book.

Hmmm ... none of my assumptions have been undercut. How about yours?

I guess what Chris Mooney means is that some of his assumptions will have to be re-evaluated. It's about time.

---

1. Unless you're an American. Then you probably believe that all scientists live in the USA.

Is Evolution Guided or Unguided?

Michael Ruse has criticized Alvin Plantinga for being critical of evolution. Plantinga defends himself in a letter published in The Chronicle of Higher Eduaction: Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers.

I want to address one particular point that Plantinga makes because it's relevant to the issues that come up in the accommodationist wars.

"Why," asks Ruse, "does Plantinga feel this way?" Because, he says, "In his view, Darwinism implies that there is and can be no direction in life's history." Still another missed distinction. As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.

Plantinga is allying himself with Eugenie Scott and other accommodationists who fiercely defend the idea that science can't address issues such as purpose. In fact, Genie fought hard to remove references to "unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process" from a statement on evolution by the National Association of Biology Teachers back in 1995 [NCSE v National Association of Biology Teachers].

I disagree with Plantinga, and with the National Center for Science Education. The idea that evolution might be guided by God is a legitimate question for scientists to address. After all, if it's true then parts of evolutionary theory might have to be revised. I do not accept the claim that scientists must avoid this question because it comes from religion.

When you are thinking like a scientist there's only one possible conclusion. There is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the history of life on Earth was guided by God. Everything we know about the history of life is consistent with an entirely natural process—one that's characterized by chance and contingency. It is perfectly reasonable as a scientist to state this position clearly. This is not stepping outside of the boundaries of science.

Let me explain my position by using an analogy. Imagine the claim that aliens visited the Earth 3.5 billion years ago and seeded our planet with cyanobacteria. After much investigation scientists find no support for such a claim. Is it legitimate for them to conclude that aliens are not responsible for life on Earth? Of course it is. All scientists know that you can't prove a negative but that doesn't mean you can't assign probabilities and behave accordingly.

Philosophers aren't likely to get upset if scientists make statements denying that aliens are responsible for life as we know it. That's because belief in alien visitors isn't one of those kooky ideas that demands special status. However, if scientists make the more general claim that life appears to have evolved by purely natural processes then this gets their dander up. All of a sudden science is threatening religion and this is not allowed. It's "philosophical naturalism" and not "methodological naturalism." It's not science according to Plantinga and many accommodationists, including Michael Ruse. Bollocks, I say.

Scientists call it as they see it. If that upsets the theists then they had better learn to deal with it instead of whining about the science being illegitimate.

Science says that evolution is not divinely guided, based on what we know today.

---

Teaching the Controversy About Homeopathy

 
I've got a confession to make. I've been posting about homeopathy this week but everything I've said has been negative. You know there must be another side to this "controversy" so in the interest of fairness, here it is. These homeopaths are putting forward the best possible case for taking homeopathic "remedies."¹

---

1. If you pay attention, you'll notice that there's no scientific evidence presented. You already know why.

[Hat Tip: Tony Burns]

More Homeopathic Woo: Super-Memory

 
This gets better and better as the week goes on. PZ Myers has discovered a company that markets fragments of DNA to promote good health. You don't actually eat the DNA, instead you drink water that has been exposed to the DNA [More Magic Snake Oil].

The company is called Homeovitality® and one of their products is Super Memory/IQ. I'm showing a picture of the product taken from their website in order to prove to you that it actually exists. This is part of the discussion concerning its scientific/medical efficacy—an important part of science education and social responsibility.

How does it work? Before I explain it to you, you'd better be sitting down. Try and remain calm.

There are two genes in your genome called CRM2 and SNAP-25. CHRM2 encodes a muscarinic receptors and various alleles of this gene have been associated with alcohol dependence and drug dependance, according to the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database [CHOLINERGIC RECEPTOR, MUSCARINIC, 2; CHRM2]. SNAP-25 encodes a synaptosomal-associate protein of 25kDa molecular weight. There have been reports that alleles of SNAP-25 are associated with hyperactivity but a separate study did not confirm this association according to OMIN [SYNAPTOSOMAL-ASSOCIATED PROTEIN, 25-KD; SNAP25].

Homeovitality® had some DNA sequences made for each of these genes: a 164 bp fragment in the case of CRM2 and a 144 bp fragment in the case of SNAP-25 [What is Homeovitality®?]. They used these pieces of DNA to make the Super Memory/IQ product.

Homeovitality® products have also been succussed at each dilution stage so they will also help to promote desirable forms of hybrid vigour in a “like promotes like” mode of action involving some of the mechanisms (4) described by Dr. Kratz, (http://kulisz.com/how_does_homeopathy_work.htm).

Homeovitality® products are safe because firstly, they are used at similar dilutions to classical homeopathic disease remedies and secondly, hybrid vigour is a completely natural biological process that has been developed by nature over millions of years to enable all creatures to enjoy “super health” and disease resistance.

"Succussed refers to the practice of forcefully striking the various dilution solutions in order to help "potentize" the effect. "Hybrid vigor" refers to the belief that these DNA sequences—or, more appropriately, the memory of these sequences—will produce heterozygosity in patients and that's a good thing.

---

Lance Corporal Robert Alexander Hood (1895 - 1917)

Robert Alexander Hood¹ was born in 1895 in a small village north-west of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He went to France in 1916 when he was only 21 years old. Robert fought with the 73rd Battalion and he was killed in action at Vimy Ridge on this day, April 12, in 1917.

Canadians "celebrate" the battle of Vimy Ridge as a great Canadian victory. It was part of the larger Battle of Arras, which in turn was a diversionary attack in support of the larger Nivelle Offensive carried out by the French Army. About 3,600 young Canadian men were killed during the four day battle and 7,000 more were wounded. This is just a small fraction of the casualties on both sides during World War I.

We need to be very careful not to glorify war while remembering all those young mean and women who died in a war that never should have been fought. I will eventually go to Arras and visit the large memorial erected by the Canadian government (see below) but I will do it in order to reinforce my view that war is folly and the deaths of soldiers like Robert Alexander Hood should never have happened.

There is never any glory in war and it's nothing we should ever be proud of.

---

1. He was a cousin of Ms. Sandwalk's grandfather.

The "Science" Behind Homeopathy

 
Are all homeopaths and their supporters complete idiots? Do they all think they're practicing some form of black magic? No, they usually don't think that at all. Many of them honestly believe that there's scientific evidence supporting homeopathy. They actually believe that water can retain some magical properties after it has been exposed to certain chemicals. How is this possible? It's because of "nanobubbles."

Here's John Benneth explaining the "science" behind homeopathy. This is woo of the highest order. Read Orac's take-down at Your Friday Dose of Woo: The physics of homeopathy and "nanocrystalloids". There are no reputable scientists who believe what John Benneth claims. If he's implying that there's scientific support for homeopathy, then what he's saying is not true.

---

Homeopathy Kills

 
Here's what can happen if a homeopath treats his own daughter. He ends up in jail, she ends up dead.

---

Atheist Barbie

 
Here's the ideal present for all of you with young sons and daughters, or young grandchildren. It's atheist Barbie from Blag Hag.



I'm ordering one today for Zoë ... and two others for Jane and Gordon.

---

[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]

Too Many Gods

 

Me and my Christian friends have a lot in common but I didn't realize how much until I found this site: Gods You Don't Believe In. It lists about 2,800 gods of various sorts. I don't believe in any of them and most Christians reject all but a handful¹. That makes about 2,795 gods whose nonexistence we agree on.

---

1. I'm not sure how to count up the gods of Christianity. If you assume that the big guy, Jesus, and the ghost are all the same person then what about Satan and some of the senior angels like Gabriel and Michael? Do they count as gods? And what about the other gods mentioned in the ten commandments? The god of the Bible says not to worship them because he is jealous but he doesn't deny that they exist. Who are they?

A Message for Hillary Clinton from Canadians

 
From CBCNews [Don't extend Afghan mission, Canadians say: poll].

---

If Water Has a Memory ....

Homeopathy

---

Yes, I'm aware of the fact there's another, possibly better, version of this poster using another word for "crap."

What Is Homeopathy?

 
Homeopathy awareness week is coming up and scientists from all around the world are gearing up to explain why homeopathy doesn't work—that's why it's called "alternative" medicine. It's a part of quack medicine that's not "real" medicine. Real medicine is based on scientific evidence.

Many people don't know what homeopathy is all about. They confuse homeopathy with a host of other forms of non evidence-based medicine like naturopathy and herbalism. That's a big mistake. Homeopathy is a form of treatment where you drink water that supposed to contain the magical imprint of some chemical. The chemical is often quite dangerous but, don't be worried, it's not really present in the treatment you pay for.

Here's the Wikipedia description of homeopathy.

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that attempts to treat patients with heavily diluted preparations. Based on an ipse dixit[1] axiom[2] formulated by Hahnemann which he called the "law of similars", preparations which cause certain symptoms in healthy individuals are given as the treatment for patients exhibiting similar symptoms. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term "succussion," after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect of the treatment. Homeopaths call this process "potentization". Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.

Don't confuse it with anything else. There's absolutely no evidence that homeopathy works. The scientific data, taken as a whole, is conclusive. Be wary of those who believe in homeopathy because their advice on other forms of treatment may not be based on evidence either. Homeopathy is bad enough but it often keeps even worse company.

---

Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?

 
As most of you know, the citizens of the United Kingdom do not obsess over the separation of church and state and they do not use their constitution to keep creationism out of their schools. That's why the question posed by Michael Reiss in New Statesman is a valid one in that country, "Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?". The answer might surprise many people in other countries.

Why schools and universities should encourage debate on evolution -- and how this could benefit science.
.... When teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have in order to shape and provoke a genuine discussion. The word "genuine" doesn't mean that creationism and intelligent design deserve equal time with evolution. They don't. However, in certain classes, depending on the teacher's comfort with talking about such issues, his or her ability to deal with them, and the make-up of the student body, it can and should be appropriate to address them.

Having said that, I don't pretend to think that this kind of teaching is easy. Some students become very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said. But I believe in taking seriously the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution while still introducing them to it. Although it is unlikely that this will help them resolve any conflict they experience between science and their beliefs, good teaching can help students to manage it - and to learn more science.

My hope is simply to enable students to understand the scientific perspective with respect to our origins, but not necessarily to accept it. We can help students to find their science lessons interesting and intellectually challenging without their being a threat. Effective teaching in this area can help students not only learn about the theory of evolution, but also better appreciate the way science is done, the procedures by which scientific knowledge accumulates, the limitations of science and the ways in which scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge.

I agree with this point of view. I think the main arguments for creationism, and against evolution, should be discussed in science class. It's an excellent way of showing what real science is and how it should be practiced.

The problem with ignoring the main criticisms of evolution is that students are going to hear about them from other sources and they won't know what to think about those points of view unless we teach them how to reason. The goal of science education is to teach students how to think, not just fill them with facts. It's our responsibility as teachers to teach critical thinking. One of the best ways to do that is to give them some popular examples to discuss and debate.

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

Advertising 23andMe

 
Some bloggers are huge fans of genetic testing. They frequently post articles promoting one of the private companies that charge you for doing these tests. ScienceRoll recently posted this video of Anne Wojcicki making a pitch for her company. Wojcicki is one of the co-founders of 23andMe. It's interesting to see how she mixes various rationales for genetic testing with a pitch for 23andMe.

Imagine this was a talk by the CEO of a major pharmaceutical company about the importance of their drugs and why you should buy them. We would probably be more skeptical than we seem to be about Ann Wojcicki. Why is that?

---