Anti-anti-misinformation; diet drinks on trial; scientists should git gud at debating; vaccinating bats; real aliens; and vaping... IN MICE. Plus lots of interesting science-related links
Thanks! One more addition to the WHO wall of shame: their recent guidance on sex ed, which reads like it was written by a groomer, with instruction to teach under-4s about masturbation and gender ideology. It's causing worldwide outrage:
Bit of a tricky question, the education of children in the niceties of sexuality. Never having had kids myself I don't have any solid ideas as to what is "age-appropriate". No doubt there's a lot of anti-scientific claptrap that comes in under the rubric of "gender ideology", but seems there's room for improvement in traditional pedagogy in the realm of sex education.
In any case and more broadly, as you're a biologist I wonder what your take is on a BMJ editorial that more or less endorsed WHO's position on the dichotomy between sex & gender:
BMJ: "Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. ...."
But you might also have some interest in the definitions for the sexes "promulgated" in the Glossary of an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR]:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
I agree with BMJ, but I dislike conceding anything to the gender cult. Had we already stopped saying that gender was just a synonym for sex or a stipulation in description of language before they came along? I didn't think so.
I am uninterested in talking about the definitions of the sexes, because we all already know them as a matter of common sense and intuitive perception, and any plunge into such discussion means we have allowed the cult to put us on the defensive, which is a bad idea. They are not rational, they are bullies. Any such attempt should simply be met with "We all know what a woman is, you are trying to deny the patently obvious."
My fellow biologists, and I love them all, too often allow themselves to be tempted into geeking out on discussions of the minutiae of sex. It is our turf, and everyone enjoys parading about on their own turf.
Consequently, the most coherent and scientifically justified definition for "gender" seems to boil down into personalities and personality types. Given that premise, it is rather risible, being charitable, that they should argue that some dick-swinging dude with some feminine personality traits should be allowed thereby to compete in women's sports. We might just as well create separate sports leagues for introverts and extroverts, for all of the myriads of other personalities.
Hazel: "I am uninterested in talking about the definitions of the sexes ..."
Seems that's sort of like abandoning the field unbloodied. Just gives free rein to the scientific illiterates and political opportunists for them to start peddling the idea of sex as a spectrum. There are solid reasons for defining the sexes as a binary -- as that MHR article goes into some detail on. But as long as biologists are unwilling to champion those reasons, so long will it be possible to make the claim that one definition is as good as another.
You in particular might have some interest in an essay by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy -- who goes into some detail on those reasons:
Griffiths (PhilPapers): "Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes – one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. This fact has been obscured by concentrating on humans, and ignoring species which regularly change sex, as well as those with non-genetic or facultatively genetic sex determination systems."
Seems that a great many people have some difficulty with that question ... 😉🙂 The problem there is multiple definitions on the table -- both as a sex -- i.e., adult human female [AHF] -- and as a gender -- i.e., anyone who exhibits any traits typical of an AHF:
That's all very smart and sensible, but it's mostly a waste of time. The people making pro-trans arguments are by and large not biologists, they are just shovelers of BS. They are not stopped by brilliantly-argued facts, not for one second. They don't argue with facts, they argue with emotion, with aggression.
In the end this struggle won't be won primarily with scientific facts, it'll be won with common sense and the willingness to speak up loudly in its favor.
The article linked above on diet vs. sugary drinks has a passing reference to arguments about bike helmets—specifically, those that claim that helmets don't work. That does indeed sound silly. But the best argument I've heard against bicycle helmet laws (not against helmets in general) goes something like this:
1) Bicycle helmets help prevent traumatic head injuries in the event of an accident.
2) Some traumatic head injuries are sustained in bicycle accidents, but many more are sustained by people riding in cars and by pedestrians. This is, more or less, true even once you adjust for the number of journeys taken by these various methods.
3) Therefore, if one thinks it would be silly/overreach to mandate the wearing of helmets in cars or while walking, it does not make sense to advocate strenuously for bicycle helmet laws, or to shame people for not wearing bicycle helmets.
4) Motorcycle helmets are an entirely different case, as that mode of transit is almost uniquely dangerous, with a far greater risk of traumatic head injuries than other modes of transit.
So, the argument is that if one thinks the risks of traumatic head injuries justify bicycle helmet mandates, then one should also think that those risks justify mandates for helmets for drivers/passengers in cars, or by pedestrians. Many lives would unquestionably be saved if people—kids especially—who get in car wrecks wore protective helmets. But most people see this as completely absurd.
This argument seems pretty sensible to me—IF premise 2 is true. And it's a big if! I have long wanted to see a calm and impartial look at the data on this. Years ago, I emailed BBC's More or Less about the issue, but they never took it on. Perhaps Stuart could do a piece? The question is: in terms of risk of traumatic head injury on any given trip, is traveling by bicycle comparable to driving and/or being a pedestrian?
You write, "But we need to find (or train) the next generation of hard-headed, rational, pro-science debaters who can hold their own against BS vendors of all kinds in live debates"
I would be interested in discussion, or debate :-) regarding the definition of "pro-science" and "anti-science". As one example, in the following article I make this claim...
"This article will argue that the “more is better” relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous."
Would you consider this "anti-science"? Or perhaps "pro-reason"? Or something else?
Imho, you provide one example of an "anti-science" view yourself, when you stated:
"Until anyone actually produces solid evidence that UFOs aren’t just camera artefacts (the exact same UFO filmed from different places by multiple cameras would be a start), maybe we should just lay off the UFO stories"
Imho, this is the kind of stubborn willful blindness (posing as reason) that will likely some day come to bite the science community on the butt big time. In the spirit of friendly debate, here's the case:
1) In order for UFO skeptics to be right, every single UFO report ever made has to be wrong. Every single one.
2) In order for UFO believers to be right, only a single UFO report has to be valid. Just one. Only one.
I would agree that attempts to explain UFOs are wildly speculative, for example, in the use of the word "alien". But the existence of SOMETHING not of our making navigating our atmosphere is not at all speculative. Not proven perhaps, but certainly rising to the level of requiring serious investigation, as it seems the U.S. government has itself concluded.
It's typically easy to dismiss any one particular UFO sighting. It's an entirely different matter to try to dismiss ALL of them.
If UFOs are real, and if they are being flown by some form of higher intelligence (future humans?), that would have the most profound implications for society's relationship with the science community.
If UFOs are a mass delusion which includes thousands of people, including some very highly credible witnesses, that's a huge story too, and the science community are fools to ignore it.
Ok, I've given you plenty upon which to practice debating. :-) Let me have it! Invite all your science friends to have at it too.
Eh, for "UFO" you could substitute "magic", 'ESP", Virgin Mary sightings", etc., and have the same argument.
It's not a scientific argument. The human brain's capacity to believe what it wants to believe in the absence of an explanation based on existing knowledge is unlimited.
Ok, every UFO report ever made, no matter how credible the witnesses, no matter how many witnesses, no matter if there are photos, videos, and radar tracks... It's ALL wrong. All of it.
And you, who probably has never had any of these experiences or accessed any of this data, are right.
Is the U.S. government, and other governments around the world, investigating Virgin Mary sightings, or magic?
Please send forth some better debaters. Thank you.
It's not that it's all wrong, it's that the extrapolations that are drawn from the evidence that end with "aliens" are a shot in the dark. There is so, so much that we DON'T know, and our natural perceptive powers so suspect, that humility is called for in the face of the unknown. And I say that as a card-carrying know-it-all and trained scientist. It really is true that the more one learns, the better one grasps that truism.
Maybe you've already done this, but if you spend a lot of time watching the shows that focus on debunking common or famous myths, you start to understand better.
Ah, we find a point of agreement. I really do agree that all the attempts to explain UFOs are highly suspect. I don't like the alien assumption either. My own preferred theory is future humans, but that's wild speculation too.
Humility in the face of the unknown is a good plan. But that doesn't require us to avoid all speculation, so long as we don't confuse speculation with proven fact. Doesn't scientific exploration typically begin with speculation?
Also, doesn't the history of science suggest that reality often has a habit of turning out to be far stranger than we previously considered possible? Point being, if there is an explanation for UFOs, it may involve something we haven't considered yet, or even something we can't consider.
I'm not a scientist, so what interests me the most is our relationship with science, and how the possibility of more intelligent life forms among us might edit that relationship.
As example, what happens if it should turn out that the UFO enthusiasts with crazy hair on cheesy TV shows are essentially right, and the typical science community dismissal of the UFO subject is essentially wrong? How would our relationship with science change?
Or, what happens if undeniable indisputable proof of higher life forms among us does emerge? How would our relationship with human science change?
Apologies for my previous snarkyness. Now that I see an open minded conversation is possible, I can pull the plug on that. Thanks for your patience.
Ah, we find a point of agreement. I really do agree that all the attempts to explain UFOs are highly suspect. I don't like the alien assumption either. My own preferred theory is future humans, but that's wild speculation too.
Humility in the face of the unknown is a good plan. But that doesn't require us to avoid all speculation, so long as we don't confuse speculation with proven fact. Doesn't scientific exploration typically begin with speculation?
Also, doesn't the history of science suggest that reality often has a habit of turning out to be far stranger than we previously considered possible? Point being, if there is an explanation for UFOs, it may involve something we haven't considered yet, or even something we can't consider.
I'm not a scientist, so what interests me the most is our relationship with science, and how the possibility of more intelligent life forms among us might edit that relationship.
As example, what happens if it should turn out that the UFO enthusiasts with crazy hair on cheesy TV shows are essentially right, and the typical science community dismissal of the UFO subject is essentially wrong? How would our relationship with science change?
Or, what happens if undeniable indisputable proof of higher life forms among us does emerge? How would our relationship with human science change?
Apologies for my previous snarkyness. Now that I see an open minded conversation is possible, I can pull the plug on that. Thanks for your patience.
@Stuart Ritchie - FYI, this business about having to repeatedly login to participate in your comment section is a deal breaker. If you're worried about access, perhaps put your comment section behind a paywall instead.
Thanks! One more addition to the WHO wall of shame: their recent guidance on sex ed, which reads like it was written by a groomer, with instruction to teach under-4s about masturbation and gender ideology. It's causing worldwide outrage:
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/sexual-health/international-technical-guidance-on-sexuality-education.pdf
https://familywatch.org/newsletter-archive/huge-victory-controversial-sexuality-education-rejected-at-world-health-assembly/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12082967/Fury-WHOs-sex-education-early-childhood-masturbation-FOURS.html
"recent guidance"?
Looks like that UNESCO document was published in 2009 ...
Thanks for the catch. Updated with the newer version, which was published by UNESCO in 2018 and adopted by WHO in May 2023.
Bit of a tricky question, the education of children in the niceties of sexuality. Never having had kids myself I don't have any solid ideas as to what is "age-appropriate". No doubt there's a lot of anti-scientific claptrap that comes in under the rubric of "gender ideology", but seems there's room for improvement in traditional pedagogy in the realm of sex education.
In any case and more broadly, as you're a biologist I wonder what your take is on a BMJ editorial that more or less endorsed WHO's position on the dichotomy between sex & gender:
BMJ: "Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. ...."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
But you might also have some interest in the definitions for the sexes "promulgated" in the Glossary of an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR]:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
I agree with BMJ, but I dislike conceding anything to the gender cult. Had we already stopped saying that gender was just a synonym for sex or a stipulation in description of language before they came along? I didn't think so.
I am uninterested in talking about the definitions of the sexes, because we all already know them as a matter of common sense and intuitive perception, and any plunge into such discussion means we have allowed the cult to put us on the defensive, which is a bad idea. They are not rational, they are bullies. Any such attempt should simply be met with "We all know what a woman is, you are trying to deny the patently obvious."
My fellow biologists, and I love them all, too often allow themselves to be tempted into geeking out on discussions of the minutiae of sex. It is our turf, and everyone enjoys parading about on their own turf.
Hazel: "I dislike conceding anything to the gender cult."
Steelmanning the "arguments" of "the gender cult" seems the best way of cutting them off at the knees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
Consequently, the most coherent and scientifically justified definition for "gender" seems to boil down into personalities and personality types. Given that premise, it is rather risible, being charitable, that they should argue that some dick-swinging dude with some feminine personality traits should be allowed thereby to compete in women's sports. We might just as well create separate sports leagues for introverts and extroverts, for all of the myriads of other personalities.
Hazel: "I am uninterested in talking about the definitions of the sexes ..."
Seems that's sort of like abandoning the field unbloodied. Just gives free rein to the scientific illiterates and political opportunists for them to start peddling the idea of sex as a spectrum. There are solid reasons for defining the sexes as a binary -- as that MHR article goes into some detail on. But as long as biologists are unwilling to champion those reasons, so long will it be possible to make the claim that one definition is as good as another.
You in particular might have some interest in an essay by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy -- who goes into some detail on those reasons:
Griffiths (PhilPapers): "Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes – one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. This fact has been obscured by concentrating on humans, and ignoring species which regularly change sex, as well as those with non-genetic or facultatively genetic sex determination systems."
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Hazel: "We all know what a woman is ..."
Seems that a great many people have some difficulty with that question ... 😉🙂 The problem there is multiple definitions on the table -- both as a sex -- i.e., adult human female [AHF] -- and as a gender -- i.e., anyone who exhibits any traits typical of an AHF:
"Are gender and sex the same? Usage Guide":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
Why there is some necessity for going back to first principles 🙂:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
That's all very smart and sensible, but it's mostly a waste of time. The people making pro-trans arguments are by and large not biologists, they are just shovelers of BS. They are not stopped by brilliantly-argued facts, not for one second. They don't argue with facts, they argue with emotion, with aggression.
In the end this struggle won't be won primarily with scientific facts, it'll be won with common sense and the willingness to speak up loudly in its favor.
I ranted on this point here: https://bestfriendsandworstenemies.substack.com/p/its-not-about-the-science-the-evidence
Does the WHO have any credibility anymore?
The article linked above on diet vs. sugary drinks has a passing reference to arguments about bike helmets—specifically, those that claim that helmets don't work. That does indeed sound silly. But the best argument I've heard against bicycle helmet laws (not against helmets in general) goes something like this:
1) Bicycle helmets help prevent traumatic head injuries in the event of an accident.
2) Some traumatic head injuries are sustained in bicycle accidents, but many more are sustained by people riding in cars and by pedestrians. This is, more or less, true even once you adjust for the number of journeys taken by these various methods.
3) Therefore, if one thinks it would be silly/overreach to mandate the wearing of helmets in cars or while walking, it does not make sense to advocate strenuously for bicycle helmet laws, or to shame people for not wearing bicycle helmets.
4) Motorcycle helmets are an entirely different case, as that mode of transit is almost uniquely dangerous, with a far greater risk of traumatic head injuries than other modes of transit.
So, the argument is that if one thinks the risks of traumatic head injuries justify bicycle helmet mandates, then one should also think that those risks justify mandates for helmets for drivers/passengers in cars, or by pedestrians. Many lives would unquestionably be saved if people—kids especially—who get in car wrecks wore protective helmets. But most people see this as completely absurd.
This argument seems pretty sensible to me—IF premise 2 is true. And it's a big if! I have long wanted to see a calm and impartial look at the data on this. Years ago, I emailed BBC's More or Less about the issue, but they never took it on. Perhaps Stuart could do a piece? The question is: in terms of risk of traumatic head injury on any given trip, is traveling by bicycle comparable to driving and/or being a pedestrian?
You write, "But we need to find (or train) the next generation of hard-headed, rational, pro-science debaters who can hold their own against BS vendors of all kinds in live debates"
I would be interested in discussion, or debate :-) regarding the definition of "pro-science" and "anti-science". As one example, in the following article I make this claim...
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/our-relationship-with-knowledge
"This article will argue that the “more is better” relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous."
Would you consider this "anti-science"? Or perhaps "pro-reason"? Or something else?
Imho, you provide one example of an "anti-science" view yourself, when you stated:
"Until anyone actually produces solid evidence that UFOs aren’t just camera artefacts (the exact same UFO filmed from different places by multiple cameras would be a start), maybe we should just lay off the UFO stories"
Imho, this is the kind of stubborn willful blindness (posing as reason) that will likely some day come to bite the science community on the butt big time. In the spirit of friendly debate, here's the case:
1) In order for UFO skeptics to be right, every single UFO report ever made has to be wrong. Every single one.
2) In order for UFO believers to be right, only a single UFO report has to be valid. Just one. Only one.
I would agree that attempts to explain UFOs are wildly speculative, for example, in the use of the word "alien". But the existence of SOMETHING not of our making navigating our atmosphere is not at all speculative. Not proven perhaps, but certainly rising to the level of requiring serious investigation, as it seems the U.S. government has itself concluded.
It's typically easy to dismiss any one particular UFO sighting. It's an entirely different matter to try to dismiss ALL of them.
If UFOs are real, and if they are being flown by some form of higher intelligence (future humans?), that would have the most profound implications for society's relationship with the science community.
If UFOs are a mass delusion which includes thousands of people, including some very highly credible witnesses, that's a huge story too, and the science community are fools to ignore it.
Ok, I've given you plenty upon which to practice debating. :-) Let me have it! Invite all your science friends to have at it too.
Eh, for "UFO" you could substitute "magic", 'ESP", Virgin Mary sightings", etc., and have the same argument.
It's not a scientific argument. The human brain's capacity to believe what it wants to believe in the absence of an explanation based on existing knowledge is unlimited.
Ok, every UFO report ever made, no matter how credible the witnesses, no matter how many witnesses, no matter if there are photos, videos, and radar tracks... It's ALL wrong. All of it.
And you, who probably has never had any of these experiences or accessed any of this data, are right.
Is the U.S. government, and other governments around the world, investigating Virgin Mary sightings, or magic?
Please send forth some better debaters. Thank you.
It's not that it's all wrong, it's that the extrapolations that are drawn from the evidence that end with "aliens" are a shot in the dark. There is so, so much that we DON'T know, and our natural perceptive powers so suspect, that humility is called for in the face of the unknown. And I say that as a card-carrying know-it-all and trained scientist. It really is true that the more one learns, the better one grasps that truism.
Maybe you've already done this, but if you spend a lot of time watching the shows that focus on debunking common or famous myths, you start to understand better.
Ah, we find a point of agreement. I really do agree that all the attempts to explain UFOs are highly suspect. I don't like the alien assumption either. My own preferred theory is future humans, but that's wild speculation too.
Humility in the face of the unknown is a good plan. But that doesn't require us to avoid all speculation, so long as we don't confuse speculation with proven fact. Doesn't scientific exploration typically begin with speculation?
Also, doesn't the history of science suggest that reality often has a habit of turning out to be far stranger than we previously considered possible? Point being, if there is an explanation for UFOs, it may involve something we haven't considered yet, or even something we can't consider.
I'm not a scientist, so what interests me the most is our relationship with science, and how the possibility of more intelligent life forms among us might edit that relationship.
As example, what happens if it should turn out that the UFO enthusiasts with crazy hair on cheesy TV shows are essentially right, and the typical science community dismissal of the UFO subject is essentially wrong? How would our relationship with science change?
Or, what happens if undeniable indisputable proof of higher life forms among us does emerge? How would our relationship with human science change?
Apologies for my previous snarkyness. Now that I see an open minded conversation is possible, I can pull the plug on that. Thanks for your patience.
Ah, we find a point of agreement. I really do agree that all the attempts to explain UFOs are highly suspect. I don't like the alien assumption either. My own preferred theory is future humans, but that's wild speculation too.
Humility in the face of the unknown is a good plan. But that doesn't require us to avoid all speculation, so long as we don't confuse speculation with proven fact. Doesn't scientific exploration typically begin with speculation?
Also, doesn't the history of science suggest that reality often has a habit of turning out to be far stranger than we previously considered possible? Point being, if there is an explanation for UFOs, it may involve something we haven't considered yet, or even something we can't consider.
I'm not a scientist, so what interests me the most is our relationship with science, and how the possibility of more intelligent life forms among us might edit that relationship.
As example, what happens if it should turn out that the UFO enthusiasts with crazy hair on cheesy TV shows are essentially right, and the typical science community dismissal of the UFO subject is essentially wrong? How would our relationship with science change?
Or, what happens if undeniable indisputable proof of higher life forms among us does emerge? How would our relationship with human science change?
Apologies for my previous snarkyness. Now that I see an open minded conversation is possible, I can pull the plug on that. Thanks for your patience.
If a UFO was filmed with multiple cameras, we would for certain know it to be a fake !
@Stuart Ritchie - FYI, this business about having to repeatedly login to participate in your comment section is a deal breaker. If you're worried about access, perhaps put your comment section behind a paywall instead.