Greg Sanders

Cool new planetary discovery

Via Dan Drezner, who kiddingly notes that the timing is convenient for James Cameron, scientists have discovered a "super-Earth" planet, 40 light years away, that is water-rich.

Here's CNN with the details:

The planet, named GJ 1214b, is 2.7 times as large as Earth and orbits a star much smaller and less luminous than our sun. That's significant, Charbonneau said, because for many years, astronomers assumed thatplanets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.

Because of that assumption, researchers didn't spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said. The discovery of this "watery world" helps debunk the notion that Earth-like planets could form only in conditions similar to those in our solar system.

It's atmosphere is probably too thick to support life like that on Earth, but it's still a fascinating discovery.

Also available on Next America.

Film Review: The Place Promised in Our Early Days

A beautiful film with an interesting science fiction setting, the Place Promised in Our Early Days ultimately feels like a lovely but slight short story.  The characters and romance are interesting enough but fairly unremarkable.  If anything, the two boys developing a jet plane on their own while in middle school makes them less remarkable given tropes of young geniuses in anime.  The supporting cast was better on that score, but I wouldn't rush to the theaters if any of them got their own picture.

Instead, the star is the world: a divided Japan occupied in part by the (presumably Soviet) Union.  Most of the action takes place on date commuter trainlines and around border-area buildings abandoned to nature.  The main driver of the plot is a tower which evokes fairy tales but has its basis in physics.  The art direction strikes a good balance between realism and aestetics, giving the feel of being a tourist to a very real other world.  The history and politics of this alternate Japan are not fleshed out in detail, but what is described is plausible as are some of the impacts for the character's lives.

If this slighty appeals, by all means borrow a friend's copy or watch it at a convention.  If you're an addict of Miyazaki-style backdrops then this may be a satisfying purchase, particularly if high school love triangles appeal.

Promotional Poster used by wikipedia among other locations

Disturbing local news

Apparently two high school students were planning an attack on Springbrook High School in Silver Spring.  The method would have been explosives, not guns.  That actually makes me hope that they wouldn’t have been that successful at pulling it off as even terrorists with some logistic support can botch that, but thank goodness we didn’t find out.  Saw the news from Andrew Gelman who I didn’t realize was an alumni.  I don’t know too many high school students these days, but back then I had several friends that went there.

I don’t know to what extent small groups launching murderous attacks on society is cyclical or if this is a disturbing, albeit still extremely uncommon, new trend.  One thing I have heard is that sensationalism does feed this phenomenon, so I’m trying to keep this entry low-key and not repeating the name of the students involved.  Also, it is still breaking news, so things might not be as they now seem.

A lot of the common perceptions around school attacks are wrong.  This came up recently in Gary Krist’s review of David Cullen’s Columbine.  It’s fairly widely known that there’s no evidence to support the idea that they were targeting Christians, but the early incorrect information doesn’t end there.

We remember Columbine," Cullen writes, "as a pair of outcast Goths from the Trench Coat Mafia snapping and [then] tearing through their high school hunting down jocks to settle a long-running feud. Almost none of that happened. No Goths, no outcasts, nobody snapping. No targets, no feud, and no Trench Coat Mafia. Most of those elements existed at Columbine -- which is what gave them such currency. They just had nothing to do with the murders."

Far from feckless pariahs, in fact, the two shooters in the Columbine case – [See above regarding names] -- were smart, reasonably popular kids who doled out more bullying than they ever suffered. Their shooting spree was not some precipitous act of revenge against specific tormentors, but more like an elaborately planned theater piece, worked out almost a year in advance, designed to demonstrate their innate superiority by indiscriminately killing as many victims as possible.

It is important that we keep this kind of thing in perspective.  The normal flu for examples kills 30,000+ annually in the U.S.  Driving collisions kill many more than that.   Overreacting to these incidents takes away resources from more pressing needs and can result in mistreatment of those who are outcasts to begin with. 

One recent change that gives me hope is that by law mental healthcare and physical healthcare must be given equal coverage.  Political radicalization is one issue, but I think it’s uncontroversial to say that anyone who would commit the alleged acts is deeply troubled in one form or another.  I don’t believe we have any sort of panacea at the moment for these cases, or for many other mental health challenges.  But I do believe in science and in medicine, as we study and assist all those that need help but don’t strike out violently, we will do great good and should learn more about how to assist the extreme cases.

Public interference with science

After an enjoyable argument with my friends Cham and Mecha, I'm revising and extending my previous post.

I don't think the scientific method, in and of itself, can really be used to make many ethical decisions.  They turn on too many variables that are resistant to experimentation.  What the scientific method can do is inform these decisions by providing data about how well our policies align with stated values.

The scientific community is aware of this and in cooperation with society at large has established institutional review boards and the like to handle ethical questions relating experiments.  These organizations and processes do incorporate ethical argumentation, public opinion, and politics, but try to do so in such a way to ensure reasoned outcomes.

To the degree that Obama just leaves the decision to the scientific community, specifically the institutions at NIH that deal with this sort of thing, I'm okay with that.  The system is there, to a certain extent, to allow members of the public to interfere with the use of the scientific method.  The worst excesses of experimentation on minorities and such are in the past, but not nearly so far past as I'd like.

So, in essence, I do believe in public  interference with the scientific method.  I also believe in the existing tools within the federal research community to channel that public response in a productive manner.  I'd just like us to actively cite and stand behind these institutions when dealing with controversial research.  That said, I do sometimes grouse about them or at least I did when I went to grad school.

Science and Mysticism

David Brooks drew some attention with an op-ed arguing that science’s biggest challenge to religion will not be atheism but instead what he calls neural Buddhism.

If you survey the literature (and I’d recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

Andrew Sullivan is up for the challenge and focuses on the bit about love, sounds like he’ll find ways to incorporate this into his faith. Over at the American Scene Michael Brendan Dougherty is not sure about the science but isn’t particularly worried:

On the cultural side, I don’t agree that “neural Buddhism” represents some new great challenge to religious belief. It will undermine the faith of people whose spirituality relies exclusively on their ecstatic feelings – and that is a good thing for religion. If science can describe those feelings, it is likely that it can soon induce them in people...

If neural Buddhism comes, it will be an invitation for American religion to move away from its emotionalism (and obscurantism) and back to serious theological reflection. I can’t wait.

I disagree. I’m skeptical that any mass-movement is based primarily on intellectual pursuits such as "serious theological reflection." Elite movements are happy to do that sort of thing to be sure, but emotionalism is a sounder base for a mass movement. As an example, I’d cite the Christian holiday of Pentecost where the disciples were accused of being drunk rather than of stretching their attempts to connect Jesus with past prophecies for example.

Instead I’m betting that religions not compatible with these ideas will focus on social/cultural aspects. There’s some mystical tie in there too, rituals aren’t just included to fill time. However, on the whole I think the social dynamics will be harder to study and thus won’t be included in the earlier versions of reproducible neural Buddhism.

Bad politicians, bad!

There are many stupid political policy panders out there. As an example Yglesias notes complaints about the price of gas when ultimately dealing with environmental problems will require higher prices. Far more troubling, as Jason Zengerle is pandering on issues like whether vaccines are linked to autism:

Actually, as the WaPo’s Michael Dobbs points out, the science isn’t inconclusive: numerous studies have found no link between vaccines and autism. But there are plenty of people who don’t let the science get in the way of their suspicions. Having two out of the three presidential remaining presidential candidates fan those suspicions--McCain has made comments similar to Obama’s--doesn’t help matters.

P.S. Which is all the more reason to get behind this ScienceDebate2008 idea.

That sort of thing is a real gaffe and the candidates should be called on it. Ezra Klein notes that Clinton has done it too, although hers was a lower key written response if I’m reading this right.

A bit overwhelmed at work

So here's a quick round up of neat stuff.

Joel Achenbach discusses science findings that:

• Velociraptor had feathers.
• That 'hobbit' find may be a genuinely different species of humanoids.
• Most new studies, particularly those in controversial areas, are false.

There's a missile bunker available on Ebay for $1.5M.  Great gift for up and coming mad scientists, evil geniuses, introverts, Fallout fans, and the like.  Sadly a bit out of my price range so I won't be getting it for my girlfriend's birthday.  There's a terrific graphic with a layout of the base.

The Post also had the first article I can recall on cheer-leading that actually cheered me. It was about an increasing number of teams that and other groups that actively recruit from the disabled.  Nothing ground breaking here, just a nice story of a good idea spreading.