I have no idea how I missed this. English-born astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge died earlier this year, on January 26 at the age of 84. He was instrumental in helping to develop the now commonly-accepted theory that all elements heavier than hydrogen, including those in planets and organisms come from ancient stars.
He gained a bit of notoriety and controversy for advocating the alternative cosmological model known as the Quasi-Steady State (QSS). In a steady-state universe, matter is being created, along with space, as the universe expands. QSS is an addition to the steady-state theory that states that miniature Big Bangs, called “minibangs,” are going off constantly, even after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago that sparked the creation of our universe. Because these theories directly contradict established observations and these discrepancies have not been properly addressed by QSS or SS proponents, they have yet to gain any real traction in the astronomy community.
In his later years, he gained even further notoriety for proposing that extremely red-shifted quasars were not distant, but were, in fact much closer. Due to the expansion of space, objects appear to accelerate from one another faster at greater distances. Burbidge proposed that these extremely red-shifted objects were really nearby galaxies moving away from us at the relativistic speeds and not moving at those speeds because of the expansion of space.
He came to fame in astronomy by contributing to a 1957 paper that explained how any element can be synthesized from hydrogen within the cores of stars. If a star is sufficiently massive to nova or shed its outer atmosphere, it will then spread these heavier elements throughout its galaxy. This is the commonly-accepted scientific theory to explain how heavier elements came into existence and were distributed throughout the universe.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is an excellent lecturer and public speaker. He is also a great advocate for science and rational thought.
At a PBS/NOVA-sponsored event, he answered a question regarding his belief in the existence of UFOs and extraterrestrial visitors. He began his response by reminding the audience what the “U” in “UFO” stands for and how humans, in a desperate need for answers, will fill in the blanks of our perceptions.
He was quite right in saying that humans are flawed information gatherers. We are forced to rely on precision instruments, repeated observations, the Scientific Method, and comparing observations with others to get a reliable picture of reality.
Perhaps we are not given to naturally processing information reliably, in favor of forming quick conclusions and quick reactions. An animal in the wild is not usually benefited by calm, slow, patient reasoning and analysis. In a life-and-death situations, an animal must react quickly to escape or fight and survive.
I do not blame people for seeing a mysterious light in the sky and instantly filling in all the banks with whatever happens to be on their minds. That is just the way the primal human mind works. However, it is within our power to stop that thought from reaching our lips and sit down and think about what we just saw. I do not know the exact numbers, if they exist, but the odds of seeing a genuine alien spacecraft or their occupants is far less likely than catching a glimpse of Venus or a meteor hitting the atmosphere.
While not an irrefutable piece of logic in scientific circles, Occam’s razor would seem to apply here. “The simplest solution is usually the correct one.”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k]
For those have not seen the Symphony of Science videos yet, I highly recommend you go watch all of them. There are five so far and a new one is added every few months.
In the most recent one, “The Poetry of Reality,” I have found that a few of the scientists in the video think that is “great not knowing”. I understand that all of the phrases and audio clips are taken completely out of context. Even so, I feel that these statements are poorly worded. Surely, Richard Feynman was not advocating ignorance as an alternative to absolute certainty and knowledge. Neither of these are logically tenable positions to try to maintain. Also, both tend to be associated with organized religion.
Absolute certainty means holding a very specific position on a topic and not wavering from it, even in the face of new evidence. An opinion can seem perfectly reasonable at one time, but then will appear more and more absurd to others as time goes on.
Absolute certainty breeds a terrible type of ignorance, willful ignorance. When one is willfully ignorant of reality, they will do everything in their power to avoid newer, uncomfortable evidence. In extreme cases, they will become immune to reason and become a risk to themselves and others.
In order to become inquisitive, one must first admit ignorance where no publicly verifiable evidence exists. Ignorance is not the equivalent of stupidity and it is easy to solve the problem of ignorance. Even if you do not have access to the internet or a library, you can still become a rational, thinking human being.
Also realize that whatever you hold to be true is not invulnerable to new evidence. Be ready to accept that new evidence and incorporate it into your over-arching world view.
Then again, that’s just me. I could be wrong.
Update: If you would like some additional reading, consider Bob Carroll’s “Becoming a Critical Thinker.” It’s a good introductory book to logic and reason applied in the real world.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4]
I recently watched an excellent Neil deGrasse Tyson lecture several times. In it, he made an excellent argument for the origins of the “Intelligent Design” theory and how to confront it in the public discourse.
He brought up the instance of Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest minds in human history. Tyson listed his major achievements, most notable of which were his understanding of gravity and the motion of the planets, as well as Newton’s somewhat flippant creation of calculus. However, when it came time for Newton to explain the perturbations of the planets’ orbits by one another’s gravity, he was stumped. With what he knew, Newton could not account for this perturbation and could not understand how the planets remained in stable orbits around the sun. Rather than delving into the problem with a rational mind and keen intellect, he simply surmised that a great, divine power was at work. Possibly the greatest mind in Western culture was confused for a moment and explained something away by claiming that a god did it.
The problem with simply chalking a natural phenomenon up to the supernatural is that it instantly ends all analysis and intellectual work. Thought and investigation on the matter simply stop. Not only does the former investigator not have a good explanation for the phenomenon, the entire human race is poorer for it. It took nearly a century after Newton’s death for the perturbation of the planets to be adequately explained with science.
The same thing is happening in the case of intelligent design and evolution. The reason that evolution should be taught in the science classroom and intelligent design is not is that the possibility of evolution has scientific evidence behind it. ID does not have any scientific evidence behind it, just a bunch of idle speculation and lack of curiosity about the world. Science requires a curiosity about the world and its workings. ID discourages investigation and curiosity. Therefore, it cannot be considered science or a part of a proper science curriculum.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY]
Carl Sagan was born on November 7, 2009. If he were still alive today, today would be his seventy-fifth birthday.
Carl Sagan was a science advocate and is widely known through his thirteen-episode PBS series, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. In this show, he illustrated and explained complex scientific concepts in ways that the layman could understand.
This is the core of scientific advocacy. People will not care to learn about something that they think requires heavy, exhaustive scientific training. However, if scientific material can explained accurately in everyday terms to enough people, the benefit to society is immeasurable. Any open, free society requires an educated public. Whether that knowledge comes from the regular education system, higher education, or scientific advocacy groups, it is knowledge being passed on to large groups of people.
Carl Sagan left a legacy. If there is life after death, then Carl Sagan has certainly achieved it. He died in December 1996, but people continue to watch his Cosmos series, interviews, and other appearances and they read his books. He continues to make an impact upon the world.
I did not discover Sagan’s work until well after he was gone, but when I did, I just soaked it up. It made a huge impression on me. It further emphasized the idea that a broad, in-depth understanding of the natural world does not need to be reserved for those in higher education. It is something that should be accessible to everyone and anyone with the knowledge has the power to share it with anyone.
Carl Sagan left a great legacy. If you have not watched Cosmos, several episodes are on YouTube.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqPxqTyjSZM&hl=en&fs=1&]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlikCebQSlY&hl=en&fs=1&]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk&hl=en&fs=1&]
Links:
• Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, episode 1
• Carl Sagan on the Drake Equation
• Symphony of Science
As I stood in the the shower this morning, I started to ponder the ethics of human cloning. I have no idea why. My mind tends to be both scattered and extremely active first thing in the morning. This is beside the point.
I was thinking about a Jon Stewart stand up routine that I listened to in which he went on for a bit about human cloning and how truly pointless it really is. As he put it, “There are already six billion people in the world. Clearly, fucking is working.” I would agree on this point. There is no point in cloning an entire human being when we already have unsustainable population growth as it is.
I can, however, see the utility of cloning specific tissues or whole organs for transplant procedures. There is a constant shortage of organ and tissue donors. In this context, human cloning is beneficial and merits increased research and expenditure in this area. On the subject of cloning an entire human being, my opinion is different.
I feel that cloning an entire human being for reproductive purposes would be inhumane. Only 1-2% of all attempted clones are viable and of those, 30% are born with genetic deformities that lead to a low quality of life that most, if not all, of us would find intolerable. I do not believe that the science of cloning has advanced to the point where we can safely and ethically clone human beings or create new organs that are safe for long-term transplant. Cloning is also too expensive and inefficient for widespread use.
Do not get me wrong. I think that the subject of human cloning is fascinating and merits a great deal of research. However, it has not reached the point where it is practical. In this case, practicality is the same as being ethical. Being able to simply grow new, healthy organs safely, effectively, and cheaply is a worthwhile goal and has the potential to greatly expand the human lifespan. It is definitely something that we should pursue.
References:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml
Patrick Proctor was here 