Tangled Bank #114 is Live
The latest edition of the blog carnival, the Tangled Bank #114 is now up over at Science Made Cool. Go check out the latest in science blogging from the past fortnight.
They have included my own recent post on using the new Vaccine/Autism study, which further confirms the LACK of any connection whatsoever between the two, to teach science students about the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy" in pseudoscience.
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" means "after this, therefore because of it", and refers to the phenomenon where something will happen to someone, then something else will happen, and the person will erroneously conclude that the first caused the second.
An example: a child gets a vaccination, then a child develops autism, then the parent says "vaccines caused my child's autism." This is false logic. The causation could be true, but studies would have to prove it. In the case of autism/vaccinations, this has been repeatedly falsified.
Another Black Widow Where She Shouldn’t Be
Southern Black Widow tending her nest above my porch
I just got home and happened to look up into the corner of my porch today, when what do I see but a Northern Black Widow (Latrodectus variolus) tending her egg case above my steps.
I have seen hundreds of black widows at my house (see some really cool closeups in my previous post on black widows). Normally they are down low, barely above the ground, peeking out from leaves or tree roots. Occasionally I'll see them hanging beneath my porch steps. But this is the first time I've seen one elevated so high. My guess is that she is only roosting so high for the sake of her eggs.
Hanging up high instead of down low
Below is a cool video I took of a black widow I caught this summer. As mentioned before, the widows I've seen in North Carolina are the Northern Back Widow (Latrodectus variolus), and not the Southern Black Widow (Latrodectus mactans), though it is my understanding that their neurotoxin venoms are equally dangerous. That being said, bites are extremely rare and deaths rarer. They are very unaggressive in my own experience and will instantly hide when approached. I usually just note their locations and leave them alone. This girl, however, is not long for this earth. Too close to my door, and I don't want the babies working their way inside. Plus, my wife is terrified that we have so many widows around to begin with. If it's any consolation to you insect/arachnid lovers, I am usually much kinder and appreciative of our six- and eight-legged cousins than most.
You can tell the species apart by the fact that Southern Black Widow has a complete abdominal hourglass, while Northern Black Widows have a "broken" hourglass (see the movie below and this previous post).
Also, if you like cool spider videos, check out this Golden Garden Spider video I took.
Northern Black Widow videos:
For your own edification, here is a bit about their venom from wikipedia:
The venom spreads rapidly throughout the body and acts by causing the release of the neurotransmitters acetylcholine, norepinephrine, and GABA.
And symptoms:
During the first 24 hours after a bite:
- Severe pain in muscle groups local to the bite.
- Muscle cramping, primarily in the abdomen, back and thighs.
- Headache, dizziness, tremors, salivation, diaphoresis (excessive sweating), nausea and vomiting.
- Anxiety, fatigue, insomnia.
- Lacrimation (tearing of the eyes).
- Migratory arthralgia (joint pain).
- Tachycardia (rapid heart beat), bradycardia (very slow heart beat), restlessness, hypertension (elevated blood pressure), Tachypnea (hyperventilation).
In some rare and extreme cases, severe complications can arise:
- Spontaneous abortion, preterm labor
- Priapism
- Acute renal failure (failing of kidney function).
- Myocarditis, rhabdomyolysis, paralysis.
- Shock, coma, and death.
Symptoms that may be present at or near the wound:
- Rash, slight erythema (redness of skin), Piloerection (goose bumps).
- Mild edema (swelling due to excess fluid).
- Lesion or mild infection (rare).
Carnival of Evolution #2 is Live at EvolutionBlog
Frog chilling on my front porch. No relevance to post.
The latest edition of the Carnival of Evolution, CoE #2, is now posted over at Jason Rosenhouse's EvolutionBlog. So go wrap your brains around the tidbits he has served up. Also, though he didn't link it within the CoE, he posted his own excellent article on the Anglican Church's apology to Darwin.
Next up is Greg Laden's Blog to host CoE #3. For hosting and submission info go to the central Carnival of Evolution site.
Doctrine: the Antithesis of Evolution and All Science
Dr. Jim West has implicitly claimed that because evolutionists often defend the theory of evolution so passionately and vociferously (or as he puts it, with "religious zeal"), then that must mean that evolution is "doctrine" [1. in this argument, I am only referring to the common usage of doctrine meaning "dogmatic system of beliefs" as opposed to the more innocuous "codified system of teachings". Of course evolution is a codified system of teachings. But it is a system that inherently acknowledges its own fallibility and tenuous nature]. (his post title: If It’s Not A Doctrine, Why Are People So Defensive?).
I hear this argument all the time, in multiple variations - claiming that because we defend evolution passionately, that means that evolution is "dogmatic" or "religious."
This is specious logic at best. I originally responded to his post in his own comment section, and I reproduce my thoughts here:
1) Just because someone is vociferous and passionate with any sort of claim, defense, proclamation, or simple statement, that does not have any bearing on its “religiosity”. Calling a passionate response “religious zeal” is simply an attempt to obfuscate the language and warp the debate.
2) Equating the passionate nature of a subject’s defense with anything concerning the nature of that subject is simple fallacious logic (i.e. what the hell does passion of a response have to do with whether or not it is doctrine?)
I will agree with the philosophical premise that ALL scientific knowledge is predicated on the prime assumption that sense relates to reality. Thankfully, simple pragmatism allows us to build science from the fact that it seems to work.
However, neither science nor evolution can be considered “doctrine” for the simple inherent acknowedgement within the scientific epistomology that it will always be possible that the prime assumption might be false. This is why science “fact” isn’t based on provability, but by falsifiability. Even the falsification of any scientific hypothesis is always considered inherently tentative. You cannot call something doctrine if that doctrine implicitly acknowledges its own fallibility.
(note: obviously in this argument, I am only referring to the common usage of doctrine meaning “dogmatic system of beliefs” as opposed to the more innocuous “codified system of teachings”. Of course evolution is a codified system of teachings. But it is a system that inherently acknowledges its own fallibility and tenuous nature.)
(Update: he has deleted my comments multiple times - maybe the word "hell" offended him? Or perhaps he couldn't argue?
Update 2: now they are online - apparently he doesn't like people to use pseudonyms. I guess I could have made up a name, but oh well - My name is easy enough to find.)
Blog is Screwing up in Internet Explorer
Update: all is well - I found the offending code and eliminated it mercilessly.
Sorry, but if you're viewing this blog through Internet Explorer - almost NOTHING is working right.
I'm working to figure out what the heck is wrong. It seems to work fine in Firefox.