Flapping for traction

First, I must apologize to all the biologists who have known this for quite some time, and who might ask why I even bother to blog about it. But on the National Science Foundation's website, I found this little video clip about the fascination of bird flight, which quite casually illustrates how wings, and the capability to fly, might have evolved: Young ground birds (like the partridge, shown in the video) can make use of their wings, even before they are fully developed for flight - by using them like a race car uses a spoiler, to gain added traction which enables them to run up inclines, like a tree trunk. Quite fittingly, it is called wing assisted incline running, and it neatly explains how birds could gradually develop their forelimbs into wings and attain flight:


Nothing fundamentally new here, but since proponents of intelligent design persistently cite the evolution of flight as an example for irreducible complexity, one should just as persistently point out the fallacy behind it. Which I have done herewith...

A "pedestrian paradise" makes for better neighbors

Although paradise might be too big a word here: The research paper Examining Walkability and Social Capital as Indicators of Quality of Life at the Municipal and Neighborhood Scales , which was published in the current edition of Applied Research in Quality of Life actually talks about walkable neighborhoods, where amenities like playgrounds, restaurants, grocery stores, or post offices can easily be reached on foot. People living in such neighborhoods are, on average, not only healthier (thanks to the exercise of walking) and more connected (because they have more encounters with neighbors and friends in the street, for example), but they also possess more social capital, which was defined by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital as the

aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group – which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a ‘credential’ which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word.

Social capital comprises aspects of social interaction, like trust among neighbors (they know each other), or participation in local politics (regarding the funding for playgrounds, for example, or schools, or parks). According to lead author Shannon Rogers, Ph.D. student at the University of New Hampshire, being better connected might even lead to better health and more economic opportunities.

The research paper is based on 700 interviews in 20 neighborhoods in Portsmouth and Manchester (NH). Participants had to identify, how many of a total of 13 locations in their neighborhood they could reach by walking. Neighborhoods with at least seven locations in walking distance were categorized as "walkable". Social capital was determined by using a scale that was developed by Harvard professor Robert Putnam for his Saguaro Seminar.

But one must not forget that the paper establishes only a correlation between walkability and social capital; it would be false to read anything more into this, since it can be said with some plausibility that walkable neighbors might be self-selecting by, let's just say, attracting groups and people who prefer a lifestyle less dependent on cars, for example, and enjoy being politically active. Or people who prefer knowing their neighbors, who prefer living in a place where they can meet people in the streets, in parks, at neighborhood events etc. But as a Geographer, I find satisfaction the fact that social and spatial behavior can inform each other. And it shows that walkable neighborhoods might not be a bad thing after all - contrary to what many urban "designers" seem to believe ...

Original Post: Im Fußgängerparadies leben bessere Nachbarn

"One drop" on a hot-button issue: racism

Barack Obama is the first black US president, Halle Berry was the first black woman to receive an Oscar for Best Actress, and Colin Powell was the nation's first black Secretary of State. Were they, really? Obama and Berry both have caucasian mothers, and Powell has, courtesy of his Scottish ancestry, a lighter skin tone than a beach bum on the Jersey shore. Why do we see them as "black", although they are just as equally "white"? Because we may live in the 21st century, but we still keep an age-old racial hierarchy in our minds, which reserves the top rung for caucasians, labeling all other "races" as inferior and, consequently, as contaminants. And that is not just my personal opinion, but the conclusion in a paper on Evidence for hypodescent and racial hierarchy in the categorization and perception of biracial individuals, which appears in the most recent issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

I must confess: I had never heard of hypodescent before and had to look it up:

Hypodescent is the rule that automatically assigns the children of a mixed union or mating between members of different socioeconomic groups in the less privileged group.

This is also known as the one drop rule, and it is more than just one of many racial prejudices still prevalent today: it was written into law in 1662 in the Virginia colony and remained on the books for centuries; it was the basis for laws against intermarriage; and as late as 1985, it was essentially confirmed by the US Supreme Court: The highest US court had let stand, in the case of Jane Doe v. Louisiana, that Suzy Phipps could not legally change her (in her view erroneous) racial identification from black to white.

And this notion that one drop of "inferior" blood leads to a "contamination" of "white blood" (my apologies for all the quotation marks - but from my German point of view, such racial labeling, although widely accepted here in the US, seems extremely questionable and makes me very uncomfortable), is still widespread, according to the research of James Sidanius, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, and his co-authors Mahzarin Banaji, Arnold K. Ho, Ph.D. student of psychology at Harvard, and Daniel T. Levin at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. They used a series of computer-generated images, morphing white and black as well as white and Asian faces (ranging from 5 percent white to 95 percent white); the 50-50 mix of two races was practically never identified as white - to be considered caucasian, black-white biracial images had to be at least 68 percent "white" (Asian-white required "only" 63 percent "white").

There is one conclusion which I would dare to question, though:

The team found few differences in how whites and non-whites perceive biracial individuals, with both assigning them with equal frequency to lower-status groups.

It's the "lower status" reference that I find questionable in this context, at least when it refers to the minority views: It might also express some kind of ethnic pride, when an Afroamerican choses to label a face "black", although it is predominantly "white" - it should not be interpreted as demeaning to him to be perceived as black. Although, quite honestly, I know that even in today's society, this view might still qualify me as naive.

Ein Tropfen auf das "heiße Eisen" des Rassismus

One thing that I am not talking about in my original German-language post (see above link), is that in the United States, racism - which is not automatically identical with racial discrimination - is still an acceptable and accepted concept. We are constantly required to identify ourselves by race, be it in the Census, or on government applications, or whatnot (as a non-citizen, I am not privy to all the paperwork requirements that Americans have to endure). This concept seems even odder to us Germans (and, I might add, given our history, it should be) - we actually don't use the word "race" for human beings. Our word "Rasse" would be correctly translated as "breed", and as such it applies only to domesticated animals. You need proof? Search "Menschenrassen" on Wikipedia.de (I know, that doesn't really prove anything, but it'll do for now), and you will be redirected to the subject of "Rassentheorie", which, right in the first line, is decribed as "heute als überholt angesehene Theorien" - theories that are now considered outdated.

Which doesn't mean that there is no ethnic discrimination in Germany; sadly, the issue received an unexpected boost with a book by former Deutsche Bank executive Thilo Sarrazin, who received not only (well deserved) criticism, but sadly also a lot of applause for his theory, published in his book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" (Germany dooes away with itself), that Muslim immigrants are culturally, intellectually, and genetically inferior. A stupid, unfounded, revolting, disgusting (add more words of contempt here: ______) view - but terrifyingly populistic, too.

Good grades = good health

That is, according to a new paper by sociologist Patricia Herd of the University of Wisconsin, based on data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, and published in the current Journal of Health and Social Behavior. According to the data retrieved from that study, which followed 10,000 Wisconsin high schoolers of the class of 1953 throughout the decades,

Herd's findings showed that the higher a study participant's high school rank was, the lower the probability that participant experienced worsening health between 1992 and 2003, when the class members neared retirement age.

Okay, I would not doubt that there is a correlation between grades and health - but I do doubt that there is causation. In other words: Good grades do have some relevance when later income and wealth is concerned, and the nexus between income and overall health has also been plausibly established. So it might not be the good grades, but the advantageous economic situation that is the determining factor in good health. And even the relationship between grades and income might be as simple as good work in school leading to better-paying jobs - after all, family wealth can buy tutoring, save the student from the need to work for his upkeep (certainly not unusual in the 1950's), and allow him to focus on his studies; more affluent neighborhoods also generally enjoy better-equipped schools and better-paid teachers - both certainly important factors in academic success.

Gute Noten sind gesund

Sometimes, science leaves you dissatisfied

What's that? Am I trying to be just another crank, dissatisfied with science? Well, no - who said that science has to be satisfying? Not every scientific result can be as satisfying as a bowl of hot chicken noodle soup on a cold winter day - I would venture a guess that even physicists are sometimes deeply dissatisfied with the results of, let's say, quantum mechanics. The satisfaction of answers that are comprehensive and plausible is not a scientific requirement - it's our "common sense" that is satisfied by it. Like by a bowl of chicken soup - or steak and lobster, for that matter. Which leads directly to why I started writing this post in the first place.

Today's edition of the Science Times is dedicated solely to puzzles. And on the second-to-last page, I came across a math puzzle, which - when answered correctly - left me deeply dissatisfied. Here's the riddle:

A surf and turf holiday buffet costs only $5.95. But you must pick one of 38 covered plates, without looking, and only one of them has any food: lobster and steak worth $208. If you're a purely economical holiday gourmand, is the buffet worth the price? Now imagine the other 37 plates have a conciliatory chocolate worth $1. Is the buffet now a good buy?

For those who want to solve it themselves, I will leave some space here
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Let's continue with the solution, as offered by the Times. The first deal is definitely not worth the price: You have a 1/38 chance to win the plate, which gives you an average value of $5.47 for your $5.95. But adding the dollar's worth of chocolate increases this value to $6.45 (5.47 plus 37/38 of one Dollar) - and thus it becomes a "good deal." Q.e.d.

Well, I for my part was left unsatisfied, and I think that even a statistician would reject this offer in real life. Not so much for the odds, but because it only makes statistical sense - it plays in your favor only when you can play it many times over and over, or in a large aggregate, i.e. with a large number of friends, who can share the lobster and steak (208 Dollars should buy you quite a lot of it, even in an expensive Manhattan restaurant.) But as an individual one-time player - you're hungry here and now - you have only two possible outcomes: most likely you'll be left with a cheap piece of chocolate, that you could have gotten at any corner store for a dollar or less, or with a huge plate of lobster and steak, which is probably more than you would want to eat (or otherwise ridiculously overpriced) anyhow. Neither of the two solutions seem attractive - regardless that they may be mathematically "reasonable."

Let's ignore for the moment that most certainly, some economic expert in game theory will have a solution in his desk drawer, which can address these weighted preferences elegantly and with scientific accuracy: Form argument's sake, I will assume that the given solution is the only one that's scientifically correct - yet dissatisfying. And, obviously, common sense tells me, that it must be "wrong."

And this is what happens to many "sceptics of science" (don't call them "cranks" - yet!) - their "gut" feels not fully satisfied by the theory of evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics ... or whatever. And because it doesn't feel right, it must be wrong - right? But, as I said before: Science can't always satisfy our craving for full answers. And that's often a good thing: The less "delightful" the answer, the more likely scientist will keep on digging deeper. And that's what science is all about.


Und manchmal ist Wissenschaft auch unbefriedigend

It's not the faith - it's the friendship

Previous happiness studies found, that religious people are on average happier and more satisfied with their lives. But now it turns out, that this is not about the faith, the spirituality - it's the friendships they form in their congregation, that make them happier with their lives. This is the result of a study which appears in the current issue of the American Sociological Review; the paper, titled Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction was co-written by Chaeyoon Lim (University of Wisconsin) and Robert Putnam (Harvard); Lim writes:

"Our study offers compelling evidence that it is the social aspects of religion rather than theology or spirituality that leads to life satisfaction. In particular, we find that friendships built in religious congregations are the secret ingredient in religion that makes people happier."

Based on previously collected data of the Faith Matters Study (a 2006/7 telephone poll of 1915 adult Americans), the authors found, that 33 per cent of congregants who attend service at least once a week and have between three and five friends in their church community, rate their lives as "extremely satisfied"; but only 19 per cent of regular churchgoers without any friends in the congregation reach that level of satisfaction - the same level as people who never go to church at all. But wait, there is more proof that it's the friends that make the difference:

- Neither respondents who "personally experience the presence of God" nor those who often "personally feel God’s love in life" have a significantly higher level of satisfaction than those who do not;

- People who believe in God or heaven with an absolute certainty do not differ significantly from those who have less certain views.

- And private religious practices, such as prayer and holding religious services at home, are not significantly related to life satisfaction.

Which means, that for the purpose of life satisfaction, churches are as good (and probably not better) than any other club, where one might meet friends. And closeness to God does not lead to a happier life - at least not this life ...

Let's Teach Creationism in Schools!

I can't be serious - or can I? Would I really want to see our children exposed to the (literal) biblical story of how the world was created in the course of seven days, some 6000 years ago? This is what I think:

When you look at this chart (which I clipped from Natural History, my apologies!), you'll find that the largest portions of disbelievers in evolution are found in the US and Turkey. Sure, both countries show strong fundamentalistic religious tendencies - but both are (or at least were, at the time of the poll) also among the most secular nations in the world, legally mandating that religious teachings must be kept out of public schools. That should ensure the protection of our kids from overzealous religious indoctrination (which often is synonymous with "anti-science"), shouldn't it? Well, apparently, it doesn't:

Who believes in Creation, and who trusts in Evolution?

But I remember an anecdote from way back, when I was still in elementary school in deeply catholic Bavaria (did I mention that the present Pope is Bavarian?), which had, by concordat with the Vatican, pledged to establish and maintain mandatory religious (= denominational) education in public schools since 1924. The local priest, who held those classes, was educating us the on story of Cain, who - after killing his brother Abel in a fit of jealousy - had the following exchange with God:

13 Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear.

14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the LORD said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

Here I was, eight years old, and wondering: Who were those people that Cain feared? After all, hadn't he killed one-fourth (strike that - we knew about the Bible, but hadn't learned fractions in third grade, yet) of the world's population, and apart from his parents and himself, no other people had been created yet? Where could those strangers come from? So I asked. And I remember the priest, after being briefly thrown off his catechistic balance, brushed my question aside with the remark that none of this was to be taken literally. Bingo! I have never un-learned this unplanned lesson. It's all just a big metaphor - at best.

But by not teaching the biblical contents in a secularly shaped environment (and thus leaving it to bible classes and parochial schools, which generally prefer to eschew the theory of evolution) might actually protect the dogmatic teachings, the framework of you-must-believe, from the naturally inquisitive minds of the children, whose questions should be as uninhibited as they are inevitable. Questions like: Why did that omniscient, benevolent god put a forbidden tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden, knowing that Adam and Eve would eventually succumb to temptation? Why give them this Paradise, when he already planned to take it away? Why didn't he know of the violent consequences, when he rejected Cains offerings, but accepted Abel's? Did he do that or purpose? How could there be a Day One and Day Two of creation, when Day was only created on the third day?

Sometimes, I think it would be quite interesting to see how such tales would fare in an environment that fosters inquisitiveness and critical thinking (provided, our schools have enough funding to keep doing that.) So, maybe, it wouldn't be that bad an idea to teach creationism and allow it to expose itself, with all its contradictions and unanswered questions.

Lehrt den Kreationismus!

Costs make life an "alienable" right?

The president of the German Medical Association, Jörg-Dietrich Hoppe, raised some eyebrows when he asserted that "medicine is not a science"; let's quickly suppose he meant to say "medicine is more than a science." And let me just as quickly agree with that: Medicine is also a social responsibility, as proscribed by the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Well, at least life seems to have become "alienable": The state of Arizona decided that for budget reasons, its Medicaid program can no longer cover life-saving organ transplants; about 100 patients, who had already been approved for the procedure, have been taken off the waiting list (story here in the New York Times). The expected savings for the state budget: 4.5 Million Dollars annually - its what Arizona's top baseball player, Adam LaRoche, makes in a year. The budgets of the more questionable Arizona Acupuncture Board of Examiners and Board of Homeopathic an Integrated Medicine, on the other hand, will remain untouched. Go figure ...

Aus Kostengründen kein Recht auf Leben?

Countdown to Extinction

"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself." Advice by Wendy Northcutt, founder of the Darwin Awards, taken from her latest Darwin Award compilation, Countdown to Extinction. Truer words were never spoken ...

Buchtipp: Countdown to Extinction

Kentucky: Millions for Noah's Ark

Excuse me, while I hyperventilate: While some state budgets can't even afford to cover their neediest for life-saving operations like organ transplants, the state of Kentucky chooses to support a "unique" development project: The same investors who financed the Creation Museum in Petersburg, want to put up 150 Million Dollars for a Noah's Ark Theme Park, with live animals like Giraffes. And in return, they will receive 37.5 Million Dollars (one quarter of the total investment amount) in tax breaks. Read more about it here in Monday's New York Times.

Kentucky: Millionensubventionen für Noahs Arche

About this blog

William of Ockham probably never owned a razor: He was a Franciscan monk, living in the early 14th century, who believed that neither Jesus nor his apostles owned anything – and neither should he. But he certainly possessed a sharp mind, and to him is attributed what we call the “Law of Parsimony”: Entia non sunt multiplicanda, præter necessitatem – do not multiply entities beyond what’s necessary. This would later become known as “Occam’s Razor”. For all we know, he never actually used these words in his writings, although he certainly expressed this thought. But we don't need to prove William of Ockham's authorship to apply Occam’s Razor - just as you can travel across America, regardless of the fact that Amerigo Vespucci, for whom this continent is named, was neither the discoverer nor the first to record their coastlines and interiors.

But to be perfectly clear: Applying this razor is not science, and it provides no proof for or against anything. The law of parsimony is not a scientific principle, nor is it an instrument in the scientists’ toolbox. This razor’s edge is nothing more and nothing less than a straight line of thinking …