miss_s_b: The Blood is the Life!

miss_s_b (

miss_s_b) wrote,
@ 2009-06-24 11:48 pm UTC

Current location:	in bed
Current mood:	blah
Current music:	radio 4 news
Entry tags:	the blood is the life

The Blood is the Life!

Fresh Squeezings from the veins of t'intertubes.

Evolutionary Psychology is bad science. Yeah, yeah, I know, preaching to the converted here. But the article is a good one, and deserves to be disseminated as widely as possible.

Speaking of science, Phil Willis MP tweets some welcome news. I fully agree with him that we need to make sure science is where it belongs at the heart of gov.

Rebecca Dalzell tells a heartwarming tale of Radio 4 addiction. Radio 4 is one of those things that you either get or you don't. I count myself among the utterly addicted. I was led in by the Now Show and now I have the damn thing on for a minimum of 8 hours a day. Radio 4 is the rhythm of life; a comfort and an education in one. I'm glad I'm not alone. Especially in listening with rapt attention to gardeners' question time when I only have a few plant pots...

andrewducker makes a fabulous point about comment threads. Pls take note, maintainers of Lib Dem Voice, which I have all but stopped visiting, given that you can no longer subscribe to comments and they still have that stupid please add us to your advertising whitelist! Oh, go on, PLEASE thing.

Space Geeks! Look at this awesome audio-visual slideshow of Saturn and its moons, compiled by the BBC from various sources, including CassiniSaturn.

And today's Meme is an old one from the depths of my LJ:

Poll #619 Truth or Lie?

Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 10

View Respondents

One of these is true, five are lies. Vote for the one you think is true.

View Answers

My favourite song of all time is Living Dead Girl by Rob Zombie
0 (0.0%)

I have owned six dogs in my lifetime
0 (0.0%)

The first album I bought with my own money was Sheer Heart Attack by Queen. It was on cassette.
5 (50.0%)

I have eaten and enjoyed sheep's brain
2 (20.0%)

I have dyed my hair many colours, but never black
3 (30.0%)

My favourite beer is called Moonshine
0 (0.0%)

I'll give you the answers tomorrow.

This blog is proudly sponsored by

(Read 38 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

no subject

ms_daisy_cutter
2009-06-25 01:35 pm UTC (link)

I'm sorry, but I really despise the attitude that any study of human behavior is "not really science," a belief I typically see propounded by men in the "hard sciences" (a telling adjective, that) who don't trust anything they can't reduce to numbers. IOW, it's a very gendered distinction.

Do you propose that we (humanity in general) not study it at all, since it's unethical and perhaps not even possible to create the sort of controls you demand?

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 23 comments) (Show 23 comments)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 01:47 pm UTC (link)

This may come as a huge surprise to you, but I am in fact a woman.

I am not opposed to the study of human behavior, I am opposed to people who, like those described in the article and Freud and his ilk, make claims for which there is no direct evidence and present them as scientifically verifiable fact.

Inference is a useful tool in science but too easily degenerates into wild speculation being presented as solid scientific theory. And frankly if it ended there I still wouldn't care that much but these kinds of claims have historically been used to justify some pretty heinous actions.

What I want to seen in psychology and behavioral science is a higher standard for what gets published as "fact" and maybe a little more honesty on part of the researchers as to just what their findings actually mean and how applicable they are, and more taking into accout of non-concrete variables like culture and environmental influence. Psychology could well be a "hard" science but unfortunately the accountability is just not there in the present community.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 15 comments) (Show 15 comments)

	no subject ms_daisy_cutter 2009-06-25 01:57 pm UTC (link)
	This may come as a huge surprise to you, but I am in fact a woman. I take the rest of your points, but I should point out that being a woman does not preclude one from making statements that are or could be taken as misogynist. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 14 comments) (Show 14 comments)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 02:10 pm UTC (link)

And criticising psychology makes me a misogynist... how? I must be missing something here because I don't quite get that one. :\

And frankly if we're playing the whose-being-more-sexist-here game assuming it's just men who like "hard sciences" reads kind of like a stereotype to me. Granted, there were more male students and profs in my program than female students and profs, but there were quite a few of us female geologists involved in the department and I don't just mean as secretaries. My best friend in school was a female biochemistry major. At least in the United States, women pursing science and math degrees is up pretty much across-the-board but that may just be an artifact of the current trend of women outnumbering men in our country's colleges and universities. And I certainly knew several femaleish types who shared my opinion on psychology so at lest in the microcosm of my particular university it wasn't an exclusively male attitude.

Eh. I'm not really trying to start a shit-for-shit argument here, but if you're going to accuse me of being a misogynist I reserve the right to defend myself. I think I'm done here now.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 13 comments) (Show 13 comments)

	no subject ginasketch 2009-06-25 02:23 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think she called you a misogynist. She was just pointing out that women can be misogynist too. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	no subject telegramsam 2009-06-25 02:29 pm UTC (link)
	I already knew that. The context of the statement just made it seem like it was an accusation. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

ms_daisy_cutter
2009-06-25 02:36 pm UTC (link)

And criticising psychology makes me a misogynist... how?

I don't believe I called you one, but I'll admit my previous comment could have been clearer. I don't think that because one is a woman, one is never operating on sexist assumptions, especially given that we were all raised in a culture full of bigoted assumptions and still operate in one.

I also don't believe that only men like "hard" sciences, as that's gender essentialism. I'm thrilled to see the barriers against women in math and science coming down in the United States, where they're particularly troublesome. But the classification of "hard" sciences as the only "real" sciences is most definitely a gendered thing, and it's not done strictly by men or even by people of either sex in those sciences.

Also, while I take your points, as I said, I still disagree with your assertion that the "soft sciences" aren't really science. If they were reclassified as, say, philosophy, I wonder how that would affect people seeking help from therapists. Certainly, it would give less of an aura of infallibility to some of the more questionable schools of thought in the field, but it would also make the seeking out of a therapist seem more frivolous, less necessary. When I was much younger and severely depressed, I'm glad I was able to get assistance to see a therapist; I don't know if that assistance would have been there had society not come to view psychological help as a form of medicine.

Yes, they could police themselves better, but, as you say, so could medicine and the like.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 10 comments) (Show 10 comments)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 03:17 pm UTC (link)

But the classification of "hard" sciences as the only "real" sciences is most definitely a gendered thing

I don't see the reasoning behind that statement, or agree with it (or much of what else you've set here), but as with all things, we're entitled to our personal opinions.

From a basic definition standpoint though, I feel the need to point out that the difference between hard and soft sciences isn't just "gendered" value judgement. Soft sciences tend to be conducted largely qualitatively (and sometimes highly subjective), hard sciences tend to be conducted largely quantitatively (and, when done correctly, should be objective, though this is not always the case because, well, we're all human here).

If you want to lay gender politics over that, be my guest, but stating that "qualitative" is inherently "feminine" and "quantitative" is inherently "masculine" seems like stereotyping in itself.

Of course it's entirely possible to conduct objective quantitative experimentation in the field of psychology but it's far more difficult to set up and account for all variables (in some instances it may not even be feasible), and there are obvious ethical barriers in dealing with live human subjects, so it's just not done as often or to as rigorous a standard. But falling back on nference, guesswork and clean-sounding (but often largely unfounded) hypothesizing and then publishing such musings as fact is not really a good alternative.

FWIW I'm all for people seeking help if they need it, and if a therapist was able to help you, I'm glad for that. But there's also a lot that goes on in pshychiatry practice that frankly is anything but positive (the fact that most of the state-run mental hospitals in my country have been shut down isn't an accident; the treatment of mentally ill persons is often borderline if not outright abusive, even within "acceptable" treatments, and is often based on shaky theory without much sound data to back up theraputic use of some of these "treatments" especially considering that these people are sometimes not in a position to reject treatment they don't want).

they could police themselves better This is really my main issue with the entire thing, wrapped up in a neat bow. Accountability is a good thing in science, "hard" or "soft" and there isn't nearly enough of it.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 9 comments) (Show 9 comments)

	no subject ginasketch 2009-06-25 03:37 pm UTC (link)
	Why do you keep reading things that Daze didn't say? She's not saying that the hard and soft sciences are gender based, but that society tends to label them that way. It is SOCIETY that stereotypes people, and like it or not, gender politics exist. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 03:50 pm UTC (link)

It seemed like she was saying that even classifying sciences as "hard" or "soft" sciences is a gender-based thing, or maybe that prefering hard science is a gender-based thing, but I was saying I don't think that's the case and that there are differences between the two categories that have nothing to do with gender whatsoever but rather the methods employed by people in those fields.

I'm fully aware of the fact that people tend to associate hard sciences with masculinity and soft sciences with femininity but that wasn't what I was saying in the first place in my original post, which she seemed to take issue with.

If I'm reading things wrong I apologise but I'm not good at reading minds across the internet.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

ms_daisy_cutter
2009-06-25 03:59 pm UTC (link)

but stating that "qualitative" is inherently "feminine" and "quantitative" is inherently "masculine" seems like stereotyping in itself.

Uh, pointing out that stereotypes exist in socety is not stereotyping. This reminds me uncomfortably of the "argument" that goes something like, "If you see any racism in this situation, you're the racist!"

If you haven't encountered the sexual politics behind the "hard/soft" dichotomy in the sciences, fine. However, I have, and so have a great many women, in and out of the sciences (however one cares to define them). In this analysis of how Rachel Carson was treated after the publication of Silent Spring, the author notes: Reading the reviews today one even senses some reviewers implicitly drawing a line between the "hard" science of chemistry and the "soft" science of biology. I can't believe the nature of biology has changed that much in the last five decades.

As for psychiatry, I don't disagree that there are many abusive practices in the field. I've been a victim of a few myself, though not to any actionable degree. However, I am highly wary of people who wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Where, precisely, would people in psychic distress go? Many of psychology's detractors are on the religious far right (in which I include $cientologists); they're obviously eager for vulnerable and suggestible "fresh meat." Others are former psych patients who generalize from their bad experiences to everyone else. Some of them, to be blunt, ought to be under supervision, as they're dangers to themselves (and, less often, others).

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 6 comments) (Show 6 comments)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 04:18 pm UTC (link)

Oh there are plenty of sexist people in the scientific community, I'm not trying to refute that. I'm just trying to defend myself against your accusation that higher regard for "hard" sciences over psychology can only be based on being sexist, and not with the methods employed therein.

And I'm not trying to do the "if you see racism, you're the racist" dance, I promise. I apologize if I've accidently veered into that, but your definitions of "hard" and "soft" sciences seemed to be different than my own conception of the matter so I felt the need to explain my point of view on the subject, for clarification if nothing else.

On a side note, I've never heard biology being refered to as a "soft" science (I've always seen that pointed to things like sociology and psychology), but maybe that's just my age (24) showing, and the fact that the field of genetics has brought biology as a whole a bit more "respect" I guess you could say. It really has changed in the last 50 years.

I don't mean to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" either, I'm just looking for more accountability and higher standards for what's published and put into practice, as I've stated previously. I still fail to see how that makes my opinion misogynist.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 5 comments) (Show 5 comments)

	no subject ms_daisy_cutter 2009-06-25 04:25 pm UTC (link)
	Well, again, I don't think I ever called you or your opinion misogynist. But I think for the most part we're in agreement on most of the issues here... (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 4 comments) (Show 4 comments)

	no subject telegramsam 2009-06-25 04:28 pm UTC (link)
	Yea, I was about to add in a "uh what exactly are we arguing about again" to the end of it but I took it out cos I was afraid it would come off as unduly smart-assy. :P (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 04:34 pm UTC (link)

...and that's an interesting article you linked about Carson's book, and yet another example of how the scientific community at large needs to pull its collective head out of its arse and admit that scientists are not always as objective as they really do need to be to ensure the integrity of the field - dismissing sound work just because a woman produced it is not only stupid, but damages the field and retards progress. X(

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

no subject

ms_daisy_cutter
2009-06-25 04:38 pm UTC (link)

Science is great, but at the end of the day, scientists are only human, and that needs to be taken into account by both scientists and by the general public.

More generally, I'd like to see more emphasis on science as a tool, rather than as a mystical belief system whose practitioners are modern high priests. I think that would go a long way in combatting the fundies who insist that science (or, worse, "Darwinism") is a set of religious beliefs. It might not change their minds but it would be useful for convincing people on the fence.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 04:59 pm UTC (link)

Agreed.

Which is also why it is so critically important for the scientific community to hold both its members and the research itself to the highest possible standards and to remain objective as humanly possible.

If the fundies don't have legitimate reasons to attack science and scientists, their illegitimate ones won't sound nearly so convincing. Kind of one of those "clean your own house first" things. Or to steal a line from the biblical camp, take the plank out of your own eye, then worry about the other guy's speck. In a battle for people's minds you don't have much room for error.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 01:51 pm UTC (link)

(And in the FWIW department, there's a lot of very very bad science conducted and even published in the "hard" sciences as well, especially medicine and especially medicine where profit-driven corporations are involved, but it's not nearly as pervasive in, say, physics or chemistry as it is in psychiatry/psychology and the respective communities tend to be a bit quicker about calling shenanigans on it)

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 5 comments) (Show 5 comments)

	no subject ginasketch 2009-06-25 02:49 pm UTC (link)
	I think we should crack down more on quacks like Jenny McCarthy. Now there is bad science. or should I say.."No Science." (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 4 comments) (Show 4 comments)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 03:22 pm UTC (link)

I blame Orah Winfrey for Jenny McCarthy. McCarthy never would have gotten the audience she has if she hadn't been brought up on that stage to do her dog-and-pony show with barely any challenge or counterpoint presented by either Oprah herself or allowed out of the audience. Winfrey is one of the worst offenders today when it comes to promoting quackery. I don't mind it when she does nice little human interest shows, and she's done some very worthy humanitarian work in her time, but marching out some of these "alternative medicine" and "life philosphy" gurus on her show is downright irresponsible.

I have a lot of respect for Oprah Winfrey in the fact that she made an empire for herself out of flat-nothing after having a rather unpriveleged childhood, she overcame quite a lot to get where she is, but she needs to take more responsibility for what she promotes on her show. People listen to her, a lot. And sometimes I think she takes a deliberate blind eye to that fact.

Ugh. Yea, McCarthy needs to get her head screwed back on.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

	no subject ginasketch 2009-06-25 03:25 pm UTC (link)
	Actually, no. McCarthy already had a large fanbase without Oprah (mainly middle class moms who believed Wakefield's bunk). There have been plenty of examples cited on Ben Goldacre's blog, and other one whose name I forget (Will have to ask my friend.) I may look for them after work. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

no subject

telegramsam
2009-06-25 03:35 pm UTC (link)

Well regardless of where she came from, I agree she and other snake-oil salesmen like her need to be called to task.

I mean, I get the whole dont-trust-the-establishment attitude, I'm fairly paranoid myself, but just because the CDC said it doesn't automatically mean it's a OMGCONSPIRACY and untrue. There really isn't any evidence that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and just because kids typically start showing symptoms around that age isn't proof. People don't seem to understand that correlation does not equal causation no matter how much you try to drill it into their heads

But in the case of McCarthy etc a lot of times you're dealing with something more akin to a religious dogma than anything resembling science. You can't shut those people up with reason, because they'll cook up some excuse, logical or not, to refute everything you say. It's like trying to deal with creationists.

At the end of the day all you can do is educate the public and HOPE some of it sinks in. Personally I think science programs in public schools are where the battle really needs to be won, most average people just don't really understand how science works because they simply are not taught the scientific method in any easily graspable way, and it takes on a kind of nebulous magical quality that's very easy for people to just dismiss.

Blah blah ramble ramble. I think I'll shut up now,

miss_s_b is probably getting fed up with me flooding her comment page with my drivel by now. :P

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	no subject ginasketch 2009-06-25 03:28 pm UTC (link)
	Not that I don't blame Oprah as well, mind you. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	no subject ginasketch 2009-06-25 02:23 pm UTC (link)
	I think telegramsam was just agreeing with us TBH. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

(Read 38 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

Account name:	Log in with OpenID?
Password:	Forget your password?
	Remember me