On Peer Review

I love peer review. It makes sense. There is just too much information in the world, even within a given subject to expect an editor to have enough knowledge to make an extremely well informed decision. So the help of experts is enlisted and we generally shield out the crap.

As someone who deals with the peer review process daily, I understand that it's far from perfect. Sometimes we get articles here and after sending them to 10 or so reviewers, only one person has agreed to review. When you get 20 articles a day, you can't take more time than it takes to invite 10 people, so you go with what you have. Sometimes that one review is all you have.

Often, the authors of a paper will supply a list of preferred and non-preferred reviewers. The reviews done by preferred reviewers are often strongly in favor of publication. When we can't find enough reviewers and the only reviewer ends up being a preferred reviewer, it's highly likely that the decision will be based on a strong review in favor. This is rare, but it happens. It also doesn't necessarily guarantee publication, as our editor is an expert in the field (but nobody is an expert in everything). Sometimes we get a couple of people to agree to review and then, 30 days later, only one has actually done a review. Again, we base the decision on a single review if we must.

When I stumbled upon this post at Pharyngula today, I wasn't entirely surprised to hear that somehow, creator-talk had finally found its way into a peer-reviewed journal. I assume it happened in this fashion: reviewers are requested, none are found, editor uses preferred reviewers and gets back reviews in favor of publication and decides to publish based on the reviews.

Florida reacts...

I just read several opinion pieces lumped under the title "Your views: An evolving argument" on the Florida Today website. Here are a few excerpts from the letters:

• "The theory of evolution is a major unifying concept in science, supported by abundant and consistent evidence from numerous scientific fields. This evidence is found in broadly divergent areas, from DNA analysis to the geologic fossil record."
• "He would have made a good Nazi with statements like, "Why allow people with no scientific knowledge to question the teaching of things of which they have no knowledge." Who better to ask those questions? Certainly not the already closed-minded scientists."
• "Until the evolutionists can dig up a lot more bones and link them through DNA to show the generations/species are connected, and until the intelligent design folks can find and introduce us all to the intelligent designers, and until the creationists can induce God to make his presence known in a way that no one can dispute, there is no ironclad proof."
• "Suppose intelligent design could disprove evolution. That would not automatically verify the creationist viewpoint. For example, if we could prove conclusively that babies do not come from the womb, it would not automatically prove they are brought by the stork.
  They might indeed be found under cabbage leaves."

I'm no science expert. I certainly haven't had a lot of formal education when it comes to evolution and biology...but it didn't take much to pick up a few textbooks and get the gist of it...or read a few articles. In fact, the most tired argument for denying evolution, that it hasn't been proven, can be squelched by understanding a few simple ideas: that science does not claim to ultimately prove anything and that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and has withstood rigorous testing. So, arguing that it's not proven is...well, ignorant. Nothing has been ultimately proven.

The rest of the letters are equally as frustrating and spot-on as the excerpts. Check them out and leave some comments...they're sorely lacking intelligent input.

Florida is on my list of places to avoid...

According to Florida Citizens for Science the Taylor County School Board has decided that evolution should not be taught as a fact and instead should be taught alongside other theories of evolution.

What other theories? I assume they mean Creationism or Intelligent Design, both of which ARE NOT scientific theories.

The board's meeting minutes included the following: "we are requesting that the State Board of Education direct the Florida Department of Education to revise/edit the new Sunshine State Standards for Science so that evolution is presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed."

Since when does evolution seek to explain the formation of the universe? Last I checked it had to do with genetic changes in populations of organisms on EARTH. These people have absolutely no idea what science is, how it is carried out or what it explains. They don't even appear to understand what evolution is.

I'm so irked that this is happening. Sure, question evolution. Sure, go out there and do research and learn and try to refute evolution. But do it scientifically, not politically. Stop making decisions without the correct information. Stop taking a stand on something while blatantly demonstrating that you've put no effort into understanding it. Stop making our country look stupid, lazy, ignorant and irrational.

(Hat-tip to Pharyngula)

Evolution as fact...

Okay. I had a disagreement with J the other day about whether or not evolution is a fact. He supports evolution, but claimed that the fact that something is happening doesn't make it a fact. His example was, "if you call someone and tell them I'm at the pizza place, then it's not necessarily a fact to them." (But that doesn't matter because regardless of whether or not that person believed he was at the pizza place, he'd still be at the pizza place)

Another person I talked to agreed with him, stating that the definition of fact mentioned the word truth and she argued that evolution cannot be proven to be an ultimate truth. (But what can? Can't we even argue our own non-existence under this assumption?)

According to Wikipedia, a fact is "something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation." It goes on to say, "Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning. In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation."

Evolution is a fact in both cases; generally and scientifically. It is the case. It exists. It can be verified. We have mountains of evidence to support it.

The logic isn't too different from that of gravity. Wikipedia says, "...it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity."

Likewise, it is a fact that a process (evolution) occurs that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. The theory commonly used to describe and explain this is the theory of evolution, which includes Darwinian theory.

I call evolution a fact because it is...but also because calling it a theory leads to statements like "it's just a theory."

Flock of Dodos

I saw Flock of Dodos last night and it brought up a lot of interesting points and prompted some interesting discussion between me and J. I believe this stuff is best dealt with in bullet form:

• Communication: Randy Olson brought up the point that scientists/academics do not communicate well to the public. The poker game in his documentary backed up his idea; though, as a nerd, I secretly wished I could be part of that game Unfortunately, I don't think that this issue is really as simple as it was presented to be. The question is, how much responsibility does the scientific community have in ensuring public understanding of evolution? We could argue that the responsibility lies solely within the scientific community. Or, we could argue that the public should take a more active role in understanding. Of course, depending on the public to do so would be dangerous; we live in a fairly lazy society that likes easy answers. It takes work to understand evolution and most people just aren't up to the task. Part of the problem is that evolution has remained largely marginalized in textbooks and classrooms. I cannot remember studying evolution in any detail in high school or middle school. Even my biology course for my bachelor's degree didn't include anything. Can we expect the public to know anything in light of the absence of evolution from education? Unfortunately, no. Should scientists then pick up the slack and work extra hard to promote understanding? We need better education when it comes to evolution and science...and unfortunately, that's the debated issue.

• Anger: There's a lot of anger on the evolution side of the debate. Is this anger detracting from the argument? I've been wondering how this anger comes across to someone neutral on the debate. Is it seen as condescending? Is it justifiable? There's a great post on it at Greta Christina's blog. She gives a ton of reasons to be angry and explains why the anger is not a negative thing and I agree with her that anger is often the single instigator of action and that it is necessary and not unhealthy. I also believe that it can be misdirected, especially when using it to argue a point in a debate. It seems that the anger evident in the Creationism/ID/Evolution debate is also the reason that the argument goes from one of "this doesn't belong in science education" to "you're wrong, I'm right." What we're debating is the teaching of it in public schools, in science classrooms. Our emotions, namely our anger, lead us to engage in debate that borders on the real issue and therefore weakens our argument.

• Philosophy: J brought up an interesting question about philosophy. His question was, "why do we place more value on science than on philosophy?" I'm not entirely sure what he meant by this, but I think it's something like, "why do we think evolution is correct because it's science and think ID is wrong because it's based in philosophy?" Or, furthermore, "don't humans assign value to science and philosophy?...and if so, how can we say one is more valuable than another?" Perhaps we do value science more (though evidence in this country shows that science isn't necessarily valued by most). If so, I'm inclined to say it's because of the tangible evidence. Where philosophy is pure thought, science is based on the natural world. Regardless, I think his point was that the value we assign is based entirely on our beliefs. This is a slippery-slope. If we can't support one over the other because we can't trust our value-assignments, then what else can we marginalize? In the context of philosophy, we can completely deny our own existence. So what, then, does anything matter? J did bring up the point that philosophy and science are partners more than separate entities, that is has been the precursor for many scientific ideas. So, I do not mean to discount the importance of philosophy.

In all, I thought the movie was pretty fair. It gave a lot of camera time to both sides. It was definitely skewed toward the evolution side, but hell, that's the side that's right. If anything, it made me feel responsibility for eradicating the immense amount of ignorance surrounding the debate. Unfortunately, I've just recently learned enough myself, and I don't feel qualified quite yet to do so.

Expelled...

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed comes out in theaters this February. The official website describes the movie as such:

"In a scientific world gone mad, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is the controversial documentary that will chronicle Ben Stein's confrontation with the Neo-Darwinian machine, exposing widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination in his heroic quest to bring back freedom in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, with the help of the world's top scientists, educators and thinkers. "

My blood is boiling.

As far as I'm concerned, the movie is just blatant propaganda. It takes aim at the raw emotion surrounding the idea of freedom. It's very similar to the tactic used by our government in endorsing a war with Iraq, which played on our lingering rage and grief to overpower our ability to clearly evaluate.

It's no secret that we're emotional beings. On a daily basis, I have an internal battle with logic and emotion. Things I know are irrational seem to carry so much weight; so much so that I act on the emotion, despite the logic. I am completely capable of letting emotion direct my actions and beliefs.

And that is why Expelled makes me so damn angry. Rather than using logic and facts to make their case, the ID'ers are relying on emotional prodding. Some people see through it, but sadly, many of those people also know something about the Creationism/ID/evolution debate. It's those folks who haven't been exposed to the debate who will most likely be swayed by Expelled.
And it's possible that the movie will be the only exposure they get, because it's found its place into mass media.

For more on this, check out Brian's post, Someone Call the Wahmbulance: new Expelled trailer. Or just browse the web...there's no shortage of information.