Fisking an editorial

Don McDonald has an opinion editorial in the San Angelo Times with the misleading title, “Teach evolution in classroom.” In fact, Dr. McDonald (who does not live in Texas and is not a biologist; he instructs in human resources) he teaches argues quite the opposite, as obvious from his first sentence:

As a doctoral candidate in sociology in the 1990s, I found my dissertation process derailed until I feigned allegiance to Darwinism.

I must admit, it’s a fairly gutsy opening gambit to admit lying to get a doctorate. And then we’re off with a typical stack of creationist objections.

Objectors to the proposed language in the science standards commonly express fear of “Creationism creeping into the classrooms.” But the amendments to the indicators say nothing of creationism, and they do not mention intelligent design.

First, the proposed language implies a debate where none exists. Second, it doesn’t matter much if the exact words “creationism” or “intelligent design” are in there or not. People can interpret generalities in ways that people never intended. Remember, the law is a club, not a scalpel. The law is a blunt instrument that does not make fine distinctions or easily take into account whether consequences are intentional or not.

And since he’s admitted to having little use for evolution, I can’t help but wonder if phrases “creationism” or “intelligent design” were in the proposed standards if Dr. McDonald would be okay with that.

If we tell students that they must have one certain conclusion before peering into a microscope or turning over a rock, is that science?

By McDonald’s argument, if students do experiments that shows that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, we shouldn’t tell them that they’ve likely made a mistake or not measured accurately enough. For some things, there is a solid body of evidence that K-12 students are extremely unlikely to revise or overturn. To say that teachers should ignore that established science and let students’ own conclusions reign supreme is not good teaching practice.

Where scientific progress occurs

The Dallas Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a story concerning Representative Christian’s house bill to re-introduce “strengths and weaknesses” back into Texas K-12 science standards.

The bill says that neither student nor teacher could be penalized for subscribing to any particular position on any scientific theories or hypotheses. ... Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center, who filed the bill, said it is not an out for students, because they must still be evaluated on course materials taught.

Emphasis added. It seems to me that Representative Christian just admitted that teachers could not be held accountable for teaching just about any fringe idea and calling it “science.” In which case, ooooh, there would be a world of bad teaching and probably many lawsuits to follow.

“The state is successful and will continue to be so,” said Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Plano-based Free Market Foundation, which promotes Judeo-Christian values. “It’s important that we fix the curriculum to allow for scientific progress and debate.”

Real scientific progress and debate doesn’t occur in K-12 schools. They happen in universities and research institutions. And I’m saying this as someone who has published research co-authored by someone who was a high school student when she was working in my lab (Flores and Faulkes 2008). The overwhelming majority of scientific papers are from universities.

See also an editorial in the same paper. I feel bad for students in Kansas... they’ve got a reputation through not fault of their own.

Open Laboratory 2009 candidate logo design

A Blog Around the Clock asked for graphics for buttons to encourage people to submit nominations for the next Open Laboratory anthology of science blogging. The one above is my take.

The goal here is not to get people to vote for me, just to explain a little bit of the thought process behind the design. For comparison, here is last year’s logo:


Basically, I wanted to make my design to be 180° away from last year’s. So I started with the idea of a greenish hue for the background. Similarly, I looked for a font that was distinct from the heavy font used in last year’s logo. I wanted to play with the idea of expressing the feeling of “openness” in the type, so the letters are set very far apart.

The space at the top is deliberately unfilled here. The idea is that this space can be used to put in different things like “Nominate for,” “Judge for,” “Featured in,” and so on.

Win, lose, or draw, it was worth the bit of time I put in, because I learned a few new tricks in Corel Photo-Paint doing this.

Check out the other fine button designs by Daniel Brown (who blogs at Biochemical Soul) at A Blog Around the Clock, and leave a vote in the comments.

Why tweet?

I was listening to CBC Radio’s The Current coming in yesterday morning. They were talking about Twitter, and in particular, its use in political circles. Stephen Marche may have had the best one-liner when he said something like, “I’m not a fan on instant thinking.”

I agree with that. I’m not a fan of instant thinking, either. Since I’m on Twitter now, this raises the question: Why?

The original reason I started Twittering was to provide an easy way for students to figure out where I was. But as I’ve used it more, it’s become more like mini-blogging. I try to put out more substantial stuff on Twitter than I did at first. Pointing out a cool article might have got a short blog post before, but now it gets a tweet.

But in both blogging and twittering, the reason I do it is, in my mind, that I want to take on the responsibility of being a public intellectual. Not always easy, especially considering that “intellectual” is an insult to some people’s thinking.

Plus, I would add that for some people, writing is a way of thinking. I’m not arguing that I’m working on my next research paper through Twitter, but there is something to be said for practicing being concise. Saying the most you can in the least space requires discipline.

Now that I think about it, a lot of scientists should twitter more, because it might help them write things like “now” instead of “at this point in time,” or “can” instead of “has been shown to be capable of,” and so on.

Additional: A good post on “Why should scientists blog?”

Incidentally, I think I am the only active blogger out of my entire department. Maybe several science departments in our university.

Use your laptop, lose a letter grade

I’ve noted that I don’t allow laptops in my classes. So far, I haven’t heard any students grumbling about this.

Now, Diane Sieber at Colorado University has given students another reason to put away computers: enlightened self-interest. She found those using computers in class did 11% worse on average than those who didn’t (my emphasis). (See also here.)

Last fall, Sieber had 96 students in one of her courses and she took note of which ones were frequently using their laptops. After the first test, she alerted the 17 students who used their laptops intensely that, on average, they performed 11 percent worse than their peers who weren’t glued to computer screens. The number of students on laptops eventually dwindled to a half dozen, and the test scores of students who stopped using their computers during class shot up, according to Sieber.

“These are grown-ups,” she said. “They need to identify what keeps them from learning, and then act on it because they aren’t going to have me for the rest of their lives telling them ‘No, no, no. Focus.’”

Now, how can I get them to put away their smart phones?

External links

Profs grapple with laptop rules as campuses go wireless
Students Stop Surfing After Being Shown How In-Class Laptop Use Lowers Test Scores

Science publishers are agents

A while back, I talked about how science publishing is undergoing a Marxist revolution. Today, Seth Godin notes:

Travel agents... gone.
Stock brokers... gone.
Real estate brokers... in trouble. Photographer’s agents, too.
Literary agents?

The problem with being a helpful, efficient but largely anonymous middleman is pretty obvious. Someone can come along who is cheaper, faster and more efficient. And that someone might be the customer aided by a computer.

If specialized scientific publishers want to survive, Godin points out a way:

Middlemen add value when they bring taste or judgment or trust to bear on a transaction that isn’t transparent. ... To thrive in a world of self-service, agents have to hyperspecialize, have to stand for something, have to have the guts to say no far more than they say yes.

Right now, there are still research journals that do this. Science, Nature, and Cell, although sometimes derided as “glamour mags,” do this: they make judgments about what constitutes cutting edge science. They say “No” a lot.

So the real pressure of open access, and that everyone can have a printing press and distribution channel, is going to weigh upon, not the top journals, but the many other journals that publish most of the bread and butter, meat and potatoes scientific research. What can a journal do that’s going to add value for either the authors or their readers that’s above and beyond what an author can do herself? Here are a few thoughts:

• Develop a review system that checks for scientific fraud as well as scientific rigour.
• Become more active in revising manuscripts for clarity.
• Offer more assistance revising graphics.
• Create long-term archival materials, perhaps more than just the published text.
• Retain scientific reviewers to ensure fast turnaround on review times. Days, not weeks or months.

Any other suggestions? What could a journal do that would be “a dream come true” for the authors?

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 31

Reprinted from the Austin American Statesman, I think, in News-Journals.com, Leo Berman talks about his Institute for Creation Research legislation:

Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said his proposed legislation is intended to allow the Bible-oriented group to proceed without the coordinating board's blessing.

"Why are people who call themselves scientists afraid to hear two sides of a debate?" Berman asked Friday.

We’re not afraid, we’re bored. Your guys lost in a fair fight. Evidence for evolution has kicked the collective ass of creationist ideas for over a century. The creationists have lost on the field of science over and over and over. There isn’t a scientific debate.

Berman said his proposal encourages different viewpoints and debate.

"Personally, I don't believe in evolution," he said. "I don't believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond."

Representative Berman, I’d like to find what biological scientist has ever told you personally originated from a salamander. There may be a relationship between you and the salamander, but it’s far more complex than “salamander -> you.”

Graffiti I agree with

Some time ago, I blogged about these safety signs. I think they’re dumb, because they’re just posted on regular old walkways, where the ground is not uneven. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are flat. Very flat. They have proper concrete sidewalks here, not dirt trails with leaves and branches sticking up all over the place.

The thing that Occupational Health and Safety offices seem to be unwilling to admit is that you cannot put up enough signs to prevent accidents. You just... can’t. They’re not willing to admit this, of course, because like so many offices in a bureaucracy, they feel they must be seen to be doing something regardless of whether there is any actual improvement. It’s the same principle that has made going through airport security so tedious.

So this made me laugh:

More creationist calvinball

Creationists, apparently sensing that they are failing to get what they want through normal means, are going to the ol’ boys’ network. First, it was Representative Leo Berman introducing a law for the Institute for Creation Research.

Now, in a classic case of nominative determinism, it’s Representative Wayne Christian (pictured) with House Bill 4224. According to the National Center for Science Education that would require the Texas State Board of Education to expect students:

(A)nalyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information(.)

Yes, this is the phrase that is at risk of being voted out of the new Texas K-12 science standards.

Christian is a businessman with no background that I can see in either education or science. It’s just amazing how everyone wants to copy edit the advice of the educational and scientific experts. Science educators don’t tell business people how to manage inventory or marketing, or tell dentists whether to do a root canal, so why do they insist on telling us how they want us to do science education?

More than 235

Here’s a list of scientists on Twitter. The page title claims 235, but I am pretty sure that is out of date and there’s much more.

Open Lab 2009 nominations are go!

The nomination form for The Open Laboratory is now up here.

Now that I’ve received my printed copy of the book, I’ve started browsing it more than I did the list of links. (Books can encourage serendipity in a way that links do not.) I’m becoming more and more pleasantly surprised that one my posts (from the Marmorkrebs blog, not here) made it in. It really is an honour.

Competition last year was intense, with over 800 submissions for 50 final entries. And judging from the sampler of nominees that’s come in so far for next year, competition this year is going to be crazy. There’s really good stuff there already.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 30

The Evo.Sphere blog reports on the latest efforts by the institution for Creation Research (ICR) to be allowed to offer Master's degrees in science education. This is a story I’ve previously blogged about in some detail. The ICR’s latest gambit?

Get someone to rewrite the law just for you.

What most readers don't know is that since the 2008 April hearing in Austin, in which ICR was denied the certification necessary to offer the M.S. degree in Science Education, ICR and THECB have been engaged in mediation to resolve the impasse, but without success. ... ICR has been offered the opportunity to award a M.A. degree in Christian Studies, Creation Studies, Origins Theology, or any other appropriate topic that matches the pseudoscience it promotes, but ICR has refused to compromise. The THECB can't compromise in any way that allows ICR to offer a master of science degree in a science program since Texas law is firm on that point.

Enter House Bill 2800, sponsored by Representative Leo Berman (pictured).

The bill amends the appropriate part of the Texas Education Code that regulates the conditions under which an institution can have the right to award valid, certified, and transferable graduate degrees in Texas. Berman’s bill gives “certain private nonprofit educational institutions” an exemption from this law.

Unlike many pieces of legislation that would promote “stealth” creationism, Berman’s office are straight shooters:

John Kingman... visited Rep. Berman's office in the Capitol. He spoke with Andy on the Legislator's staff since Rep. Berman was not in. When asked if the bill would apply to ICR, Andy said it would. John then asked Andy the key question: what was the objective of the bill? Andy thankfully did not attempt to dissimulate. He replied forthrightly that it was “for institutions that want to teach creation science or intelligent design.”

When you can’t win legitimately, I guess the only options are to cheat or change the rules in your favour.

Yup. The ICR is playing...

Calvinball!

Can “theory” be saved?

Much has been written about how non-scientists don’t exactly understand what the word “theory” means in science. In science, “theory” specifically means a large and well supported organizing principle that predicts, controls, and explains.

Non-scientists typically disparage things called theories, frequently by saying something is “only” a theory. fnord. Indeed, the phrase is used so much that Ken Miller used it as the title of one of his books on creationism in the U.S.

But I think there’s another reason that people outside science attack anything associated with the word “theory” so often. What common English phrase do you most often hear that contains the word “theory”?

How about, “conspiracy theory”?

Is it any wonder that people think scientists are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public when they talk about scientific theories, when the only other time they ever hear the word “theory” is next to unsupported, rampant, and usually flat-out freakin’ crazy ideas about secret organizations, the course of history, persecution, and maybe a little dose of bigotry on the side?

Maybe the “theory” is too degraded to be saved for use in discussions with the public. Maybe it’s time for scientists to give up caution and nuance, and just say “true,” as, for instance, Jerry Coyne did in his book title.

Did he say that? Bush on intelligent design

Former American President George W. Bush admittedly made a lot of mistakes during his presidency. But as far as I can recall, he never said this:

Bush himself told Texas reporters in 2005 that evolution and intelligent design should be taught at the same time so – he really said this – students could decide for themselves.

And I don’t remember this, either:

For eight years the Bush administration proposed the teaching of “Intelligent Design,” a religious doctrine disguised as science so as to surpass the constitutional separation of church and state(.)

“Come, Sherman, let’s set the Wayback Machine for 2005...” One Google search later, we find that here’s what Bush was quoted as saying.

“Both sides ought to be properly taught... so people can understand what the debate is about,” he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: “Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. ... You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”

Note that Bush never even used the phrase “intelligent design” himself. Yes, that was the context of the question, but Bush chose to answer a specific question with a general one. An editorial in Science or Nature noted this. Bush could have made a much stronger statement, but he didn’t.

Note that Bush never used the phrase, “So kids can decide for themselves.” Many other people have used that phrase. Some may see “understand the debate” as the same as “make their own decisions,” but really, I think people are making an inference – or, more likely, calling on a half-remembered recollection – of what Bush actually said.

The above quote, as far as I can remember, is the one and only time time Bush or his administration even came close to this issue.

Bush gave no sign that he intended to wade that far into the debate. The issue came up only when a reporter from the Knight Ridder news service asked him about it; participants said the president did not seem especially eager to be asked. "Very interesting question," he told the reporter playfully.

Here’s another account of this point:

Mr. Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer. (Emphasis added. -ZF)

And let us not forget that it was a Bush appointee, Judge John Jones, who delivered the devastating ruling against intelligent design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. So who the heck in the Bush administration was supposedly working to put intelligent design into schools? This is a slightly weird claim, given that education is a state mandate, not a federal one. The biggest advocate for intelligent design has never been federal or state governments, but local school boards and the Discovery Institute.

While I always appreciate people supporting for science, this should never mean putting words into anyone’s mouth. No matter how much you might think it belongs there.

The Zen of Presentations, Part 25: Caged tiger

Lazy blogging time, in which I point to photographer James Duncan’s blog entry called, Dear Speakers. About half of his eight entries can be boiled down to, “Stop moving around so much!” As a photographer, you can certainly understand why he wants people to stay put: it makes it much easier to make the photo.

As a presenter, I am probably guilty of the “caged tiger” problem at times. I like to move. I like to present with energy. I like to try to look to different parts of the audience or classroom. There is a threshold that you cross where that energy just looks abnormal, like a big cat looping around the same track in its enclosure in a zoo.

You have to be aware enough of your conditions to figure out if, or how much, you can move. Some stages have very definite light and dark spots; a recent talk by Robert Ballard at our university reminded me of this. His talk was lit by several stage lights, with some areas being very bright, and quickly fading to very dark. Ballard rarely stayed in the light, and it was bothersome. Some rooms, however, have very uniform lights, so this may not be a problem.

The “caged tiger” look also becomes less of a problem if you can simply remember to pause occasionally. It’s the constant movement along the same path that is most distracting.

For many presentations, there is simply a sweet spot on the stage where you can see the audience, the audience can see you, you can reach the lectern, but are not concealed by it. Find that spot before the talk. Then you’re less likely to go prowling for it during the talk.

Life with undergrads

There's much to comment upon in this post from Kim Hannula, who used to blog here but has since joined the Seed empire at ScienceBlogs here. I also find a lot of interesting comments on a question Kim poses here, to wit, “What kind of skills do undergrad science/technology/engineering/math majors need in order to survive and thrive?”

On a related note, there's this study on why people don't want to go into graduate school. In short, it’s seen as something that consumes every minute of your life – and still wants more.

I meant to post this several weeks ago, but kept delaying because I was trying to formulate my own comment. And I just don’t have much to add. Except, perhaps, to say that I recognize it all. I want to change it, but don’t know how. It’s amazingly frustrating.

What our university should do, and why, but won't

I walk past these three vending machines every day as I go to my office. In my building, there are at least 17 vending machines, of which at least 11 sell beverages. I think our university should get rid of them.

We don’t need bottled water, as there's drinking water on campus. This week’s Science Podcast discussed a study to estimate the energy cost of bottle water compared to drinking tap water, and bottled water doesn’t come out well:

(I)t turns out that for every bottle of water you drink it might as well be a quarter full of oil, for the amount of oil that’s being consumed in order to produce all of this bottled water. ...

(W)e’re talking about 50 million barrels of oil a year. And, just for point of comparison, that’s the same amount of oil used in the entire U.S. over two days – all the cars we drive, all the factories, all the lights we turn on – everything – so it’s a really big chunk of the oil that’s consumed. ...

Just from bottled water.

As for soft drinks, they ain’t the best of stuff for ya:

Cutting the consumption of sugary drinks by half is a key recommendation of the World Cancer Research Fund report.

And I’ll point out the additional perverseness of selling soft drinks for a university located in an area with rampant Type II diabetes.

Then, there’s the sheer amount of plastic generated by bottled drinks, described in this TED talk.


I don’t know how much money our university makes from vending machines. But I’ll bet it’s enough for the university wouldn’t get rid of them.

Fellow scientists in Texas, a call to arms

I’ve already emailed the Texas State Board of Education representative whose district includes my institution. If you have not, check The National Center for Science Education website for details on how you can and why you should.

What a dentist believes, part 2

The Austin-American Statesman has another profile (see also here) of the dentist at the center of the Texas K-12 science standards controversy, Don McLeroy. As usual, he says he just wants to teach science:

“If you want to tell (students) there are not weaknesses to evolution and it’s as sure as the Earth going around the sun, it’s not,” he said.

And there’s your problem right there: Evolution is on a par with the Earth going around the sun. It really is.

It’s ironic that McLeroy would choose an example that was so famously disputed by Christian churches at the time, and that some fundamentalist Christians still dispute. Because the biblical view of the universe is something like this:


Like the earlier profile, the article is quite nuanced and gives an account of some of McLeroy’s strengths as an administrator:

“There are certainly people who disagree with him, but he’s well-respected,” said Bradley, R-Beaumont.

The article ends with McLeroy making another common creationist claim:

“What I see is they’re rejecting the data for ideological reasons; they’re the ideologues in this debate, not us,” he said.

C’mon, Mr. McLeroy. What data are you talking about? And why won’t you listen to the veritable army of expert after expert telling you the data – mountains of it – support evolution? And if you’re so concerned about science, why don’t you let the professional scientists work it out? Follow the regular pattern of science: We do the research. We present it and publish it. If it’s important and solid, then it goes into the textbooks because the textbook authors understand the science. It’s not added in from state education agencies.

Edge

The national news coverage of the Texas K-12 science curriculum is gearing up again in advance of the final vote on the subject for the next decade. Yes, if you thought you’d read that sanity had prevailed and that “strengths and weaknesses” language about evolution was being removed, well, you forgot this is a bureaucracy, where multiple votes are always in order.

“Anything can happen in the final vote,” said (Kathy) Miller (Texas Freedom Network). “The board can vote to go back to the old standards with strengths and weaknesses in them. The board can vote to eliminate the amendments that Chairman McLeroy forced into the curriculum standards. Virtually any change can be made.”

McLeroy’s response?

“I want to see the United States keep its scientific edge,” he said. “And I think the way you do that is by being honest with the kids, you teach them the science, you show them the weaknesses and strengths.”

Mr. McLeroy, if you want to let them have edge, why don’t you listen to your experts? Why don’t you listen to professionals? Why don’t you listen to anybody else except those who just happen to agree with you? Why don’t you say what those alleged weaknesses are so we can talk about them?