That's right -- tomorrow is the first day of the 2006 Tour de France!
With Lance Armstrong out of the running this year, the race has changed dramatically. Not to mention the sudden withdrawal of frontrunners Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso in a doping scandal.
This leaves the race completely up in the air. There's definitely a long list of excellent cyclists whose time may have come: Hincapie, Leiphammer, Vinokourov, Landis. This should be extremely interesting. Stay tuned. Although not here. I'm probably not the best place to get your TDF news. Try one of the links above.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
One small step...
Hey, it's a good day for Kuwaiti women at least.
Let's take a moment to reflect on how much we take for granted as women. Women were only last year given the right to vote in Kuwait, and in many, many parts of the world, remain oppressed, sometimes violently so. Things aren't perfect for us here in the West, but they're better than they could be. That's not to say we shouldn't get mad or keep trying to improve things, but, you know...count your blessings.
I'm just saying...
Nobody held you down and cut off your clitoris with a piece of broken glass, at least.
Let's take a moment to reflect on how much we take for granted as women. Women were only last year given the right to vote in Kuwait, and in many, many parts of the world, remain oppressed, sometimes violently so. Things aren't perfect for us here in the West, but they're better than they could be. That's not to say we shouldn't get mad or keep trying to improve things, but, you know...count your blessings.
I'm just saying...
Nobody held you down and cut off your clitoris with a piece of broken glass, at least.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Oh, the things they don't tell you in grad school
I just spent all day tracking down an interesting variety of plumbing parts that I then need to go pick up so that our subcontractor can repair a remediation system. Why is it nobody ever told me I would need to become well-versed in plumbing supply, but insisted I calculate K, T, and S from pumping tests, solve 1-d solute transport problems, and do ion balances instead. Especially since I have only had to do one of those things once since I started this job two years ago.
~sigh~
~sigh~
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Brain shrinkers
So there was a very interesting article in Slate today, don't know if you've seen it, about psychiatry. The basic question is, would you get the same diagnosis from five different shrinks? And if not, what does that signify?
Aparently, back in the 70's, a guy named Rosenhan did a small-scale experiment that seemed to show that doctors at psychiatric emergency rooms diagnosed based more on their preconcieved notions of psychiatric wards than on the patients' real symptoms. That is to say, they may have percieved normal behavior as pathological because it was happening in a place where eveyrone was crazy.
Lots of people didn't like this study, according to Slate. Setting aside the obvious ethical problems, the sample size was small (only eight fake patients). So then in 2004, Lauren Slater wrote a book that aparently showed the same thing happening, even after mental health diagnosis and the DSM was revamped back in 1980.
So...what's going on? How can people that are completely normal except for claiming they're hearing voices -- voices, I might add, that are saying three words, not narrating or urging to harm oneself or others or doing any of the things voices are supposed to do -- how can these people get diagnosed as schizophrenic, or as "depressed with psychotic features"?
The Slate author gives a couple of possible reasons, ranging from clinician's lack of time with the patient to biases resulting from e.g. seeing lots of one kind of illness. A counterpoint to the 2004 book was a survey sent out by Robert Spitzer to just loads of head shrinkers (results were published in November 2005), which revealed that most of the respondents would hesitate to give a firm diagnosis without more information, and most wouldn't even prescribe medication. Problems with surveys abound, of course. So we still don't know what's going on -- why can't we diagnose schizophrenia as easily as, say, breast cancer?
Well, duh. There's a serious lack of information about basically what minds are, let alone what causes mental illness. But there are loads of ethical, reasonable, logical, peer-reviewed, scientific research being done. Real research psychiatrists and psychologists are doing their best to figure out how to help people with mental illness. There is a lot that they don't know, of course, but that is certainly a ground state of any scientific endeavor and should not discourage us from attempting to learn.
Not to ruin everyone's warm fuzzies of scientific endeavor.... I was just thinking, though...
...I worry when I read articles like this. I worry that this article can be taken the wrong way by someone. I mean, on the one hand, it was just a short article on Slate describing the state of psychiatry as it relates to how disorders are diagnosed. But it also seems to reinforce the idea that evidence-based medicine is untrustworthy. And people with mental illness are among those who can least afford to discount traditional therapies.
But this is a problem with science people. We know and understand that we don't know anything, and distrust people who think they've got it all figured out. We find the stuff we don't know to represent an invigorating challenge. But there are plenty of people who want certainty, and alt-med hucksters and quacks have it. It's comforting to be certain. I wonder if the public understanding of science and the pervasive mistrust of traditional, evidence-based medicine could be better served by taking a focus off of what we don't know...
Aparently, back in the 70's, a guy named Rosenhan did a small-scale experiment that seemed to show that doctors at psychiatric emergency rooms diagnosed based more on their preconcieved notions of psychiatric wards than on the patients' real symptoms. That is to say, they may have percieved normal behavior as pathological because it was happening in a place where eveyrone was crazy.
Lots of people didn't like this study, according to Slate. Setting aside the obvious ethical problems, the sample size was small (only eight fake patients). So then in 2004, Lauren Slater wrote a book that aparently showed the same thing happening, even after mental health diagnosis and the DSM was revamped back in 1980.
So...what's going on? How can people that are completely normal except for claiming they're hearing voices -- voices, I might add, that are saying three words, not narrating or urging to harm oneself or others or doing any of the things voices are supposed to do -- how can these people get diagnosed as schizophrenic, or as "depressed with psychotic features"?
The Slate author gives a couple of possible reasons, ranging from clinician's lack of time with the patient to biases resulting from e.g. seeing lots of one kind of illness. A counterpoint to the 2004 book was a survey sent out by Robert Spitzer to just loads of head shrinkers (results were published in November 2005), which revealed that most of the respondents would hesitate to give a firm diagnosis without more information, and most wouldn't even prescribe medication. Problems with surveys abound, of course. So we still don't know what's going on -- why can't we diagnose schizophrenia as easily as, say, breast cancer?
Well, duh. There's a serious lack of information about basically what minds are, let alone what causes mental illness. But there are loads of ethical, reasonable, logical, peer-reviewed, scientific research being done. Real research psychiatrists and psychologists are doing their best to figure out how to help people with mental illness. There is a lot that they don't know, of course, but that is certainly a ground state of any scientific endeavor and should not discourage us from attempting to learn.
Not to ruin everyone's warm fuzzies of scientific endeavor.... I was just thinking, though...
...I worry when I read articles like this. I worry that this article can be taken the wrong way by someone. I mean, on the one hand, it was just a short article on Slate describing the state of psychiatry as it relates to how disorders are diagnosed. But it also seems to reinforce the idea that evidence-based medicine is untrustworthy. And people with mental illness are among those who can least afford to discount traditional therapies.
But this is a problem with science people. We know and understand that we don't know anything, and distrust people who think they've got it all figured out. We find the stuff we don't know to represent an invigorating challenge. But there are plenty of people who want certainty, and alt-med hucksters and quacks have it. It's comforting to be certain. I wonder if the public understanding of science and the pervasive mistrust of traditional, evidence-based medicine could be better served by taking a focus off of what we don't know...
Mwah...
Old-timer Dulcie, my buddy Mike's ancient and beloved companion, has shuffled off her mortal coil and has gone to that big field in the sky, where they have doggie water fountains, and all the cars are made of ham and drive really slowly.
~sniffle~
~sniffle~
Thursday, June 15, 2006
To argue or not to argue
Another discussion taking place over at Pharyngula regards whether to engage with the wackos or just let them tire themselves out. Is arguing with them likely to do any good? Are we legitimizing their claims? Are we giving them what they want?
I think these might be the wrong questions to ask, though. I think the problem is much, much deeper, and has more to do with fundamentally (har!) different ways of seeing the world. I've discussed this before, but it bears repeating. People who value science, reason, and logic can't possibly convince people who really, really believe, because people who believe things view the world differently. They have a belief-centered mindset, and don't understand the difference between things that they believe to be true and things that are true.
So. What are we to do? We don't want to let these people ruin our society, but we can't speak the same language, so....what do we do?
Ideas?
I think these might be the wrong questions to ask, though. I think the problem is much, much deeper, and has more to do with fundamentally (har!) different ways of seeing the world. I've discussed this before, but it bears repeating. People who value science, reason, and logic can't possibly convince people who really, really believe, because people who believe things view the world differently. They have a belief-centered mindset, and don't understand the difference between things that they believe to be true and things that are true.
So. What are we to do? We don't want to let these people ruin our society, but we can't speak the same language, so....what do we do?
Ideas?
Seriously, what's wrong with that woman?
PZ Meyers took one for the team, and bravely read a portion of Ann Coulter's new book. Aparently it's everything we hope it would be. Clicky for his comments.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Dumbass.
Aparently, Ben Roethlisberger was in a motocycle accident and fucked himself up because he doesn't like to wear a helmet.
Dumbass.
Dumbass.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Don't let 'em distract you!
I hope you'll all take the time to stop, breathe, and remember what is really important this election season. I'll give you a hint. It's not gay marraige or flag burning. Seriously, these are just ploys to try and make you forget about what's really going on.
Don't let them get away with it. Vote out the people fucking up the country, and let's let some other folks try for a while. You never know.
Don't let them get away with it. Vote out the people fucking up the country, and let's let some other folks try for a while. You never know.
Monday, June 05, 2006
End Permian Rant
End Permian extinction explained?
Maybe, maybe not. But I found the discussion interesting, for a couple of reasons.
First, it’s an instructive example of Science In Action, where a new hypothesis is trotted out, and is subjected to review and analysis and questioning and skepticism by the relevant scientific authorities. There are predictions made based on the hypothesis and will be investigated further when funding comes through (that last part never makes it into classroom discussions of the scientific method). And if enough evidence is presented supporting the hypothesis, it will be accepted. You’ll notice in the article that none of the science guys questioned flat out said it could never be true. They are waiting for more evidence.
Another reason this is cool is because the end Permian extinction was wicked huge. About 250 mya, something happened, and approximately 90% of all marine genera and 70% of all terrestrial vertebrates went extinct, and went extinct practically instantaneously by geologic standards. Many reasons have been proposed (see wiki article above). Currently, the evidence seems to support the eruption of the Siberian traps, the largest volcanic episode on the planet ever, as the cause. Such a huge volcanic event would have long-term and far-reaching consequences, from changing the climate to changing oceanic circulation, and may have resulted in the end-Permian extinction.
Now, it is likely that the real causes are a combination of some or all of the possible causes (e.g. bolide impact caused Siberian Traps eruption), which in my opinion is another reason why it’s interesting. One of the reasons I really like geology is because it is like putting together a puzzle. Geology as a science can’t really do experiments to test hypotheses, so we have to come up with other ways to test our ideas. So we try to puzzle out what the consequences would be if things were one way, and what we would expect to find laying around. It’s kind of like working with the results of an experiment that’s already been run, except we can’t find the notes from it. I find it fascinating to work out the path from a volcanic eruption through global warming to to reduced/turned off thermohaline circulation to climatic oscillations brought on by volcanic winter to overturn of oceanic waters, bringing anoxic bottom waters to the surface and producing a potentially massive die-off. I mean, cool! And there's lots of puzzles like this! Wow!
Anyway, geology is neat, and I just wanted to wax philosophical about it for a moment. Thanks for listening :)
Maybe, maybe not. But I found the discussion interesting, for a couple of reasons.
First, it’s an instructive example of Science In Action, where a new hypothesis is trotted out, and is subjected to review and analysis and questioning and skepticism by the relevant scientific authorities. There are predictions made based on the hypothesis and will be investigated further when funding comes through (that last part never makes it into classroom discussions of the scientific method). And if enough evidence is presented supporting the hypothesis, it will be accepted. You’ll notice in the article that none of the science guys questioned flat out said it could never be true. They are waiting for more evidence.
Another reason this is cool is because the end Permian extinction was wicked huge. About 250 mya, something happened, and approximately 90% of all marine genera and 70% of all terrestrial vertebrates went extinct, and went extinct practically instantaneously by geologic standards. Many reasons have been proposed (see wiki article above). Currently, the evidence seems to support the eruption of the Siberian traps, the largest volcanic episode on the planet ever, as the cause. Such a huge volcanic event would have long-term and far-reaching consequences, from changing the climate to changing oceanic circulation, and may have resulted in the end-Permian extinction.
Now, it is likely that the real causes are a combination of some or all of the possible causes (e.g. bolide impact caused Siberian Traps eruption), which in my opinion is another reason why it’s interesting. One of the reasons I really like geology is because it is like putting together a puzzle. Geology as a science can’t really do experiments to test hypotheses, so we have to come up with other ways to test our ideas. So we try to puzzle out what the consequences would be if things were one way, and what we would expect to find laying around. It’s kind of like working with the results of an experiment that’s already been run, except we can’t find the notes from it. I find it fascinating to work out the path from a volcanic eruption through global warming to to reduced/turned off thermohaline circulation to climatic oscillations brought on by volcanic winter to overturn of oceanic waters, bringing anoxic bottom waters to the surface and producing a potentially massive die-off. I mean, cool! And there's lots of puzzles like this! Wow!
Anyway, geology is neat, and I just wanted to wax philosophical about it for a moment. Thanks for listening :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
