Richard Dawkins is a meme

So sad but so true...

Hearts and minds

This is just a quick note to remind myself on an interesting thought I had today:

Why do so many cultures associate the heart with emotional and mental character?

It seems to be a fairly universal thing. Solzhenitsyn once said:

The line between good and evil lies at the centre of every human heart.

I personally have a very Zen-influenced interpretation of that (which I'll be detailing in my book). Pascal said:

The heart has its reasons that reason knows not.

And I know Japanese and Chinese cultures both take the same view of the heart being associated with mental functions in their word for psychology: 心理学　(literally, heart study*). The only exception I can think of is Malay culture, which uses hati (liver) in much the same context where we'd usually use heart. This is known to lead to some hilarity in A-level biology in Malaysia when students sent to the butcher for a cow's heart to dissect translate the term wrongly and end up lugging several kilograms of liver back to an exasperated bio teacher.

I suppose the experience of heartache might shed some light on why this link has been made, but now I have to wonder, why does it feel like it does? Why should getting your heart broken result in that horrible, crushing feeling in your chest? I'm quite curious about the neurobiological reasons for this and so have decided to grab this lecture by Prof Antonio R Damasio and have a listen. Will try to remember to post a summary and my thoughts on the matter later...

* That's just off the top of my head, so I'd be much obliged if someone could tell me if it's a bit off.

繋がり

Sorry, I just found out how to type in Japanese with Vista and just can't resist tapping out bits and pieces every so often. Anyway, 繋がり (tsunagari) means 'connection(s)', which is the topic of this lovely video here:



I don't know what it does for you, but I haven't had such goosebumps since the first time I contemplated the big bang, deep star nucleosynthesis and evolution. I was sitting in the library of the Physics department at uni at the time, mind wandering while I studied for an exam. All around me were aspiring scientists and tomes and journals by the metric tonne, the distilled sweat, blood and tears of hundreds and thousands of scientists who had come before us. And in a file before me, in the frenzied scribbling of a student trying to keep up with the professor's OHP slides, sat my notes, a miniscule sliver of knowledge of the Universe.

A huge piece of the puzzle clicked into place for me back then, and I got that feeling one gets when you're, say, building a complex model and you put that piece in place which just puts you past the border between "chaotic mess" and "it's taking shape". I'm pleased to say I've had a lot of those moments since then, and such is the complexity of the Universe (and so much of it of our own making!) that I know I can look forward to many more.

The model-making analogy works the other way as well. Consider the acquisition of knowledge without the aegis of the scientific method, i.e. no formulation of hypothesis, no experimentation, no peer review, no constant testing against the realities of the universe... Is this not akin to grabbing a model off the shelf, dragging it out of the box, ignoring the instructions, casting aside files, knives and glue and slapping together whatever you like with duct tape? Well, I suppose this is but one possible scenario, exemplified in the real world by that special breed of person who is so open-minded his brain has dropped out.

The point is, there is a balance to be maintained. It's all well and good, perusing Wikipedia, National Geographic, Youtube and the popular science section of the local bookstore for these clips, articles and books exalting science and its bounty, but one would do well to remember the discipline and effort that went into them.

And right now, if I had a hat, I'd take mine off to the late Carl Sagan and all of those very rare scientists with the ability to communicate the beauty of science to the general public. Hum. It's been too long since I've watched a Royal Institution Christmas Lecture...

When life gives you lemons...

I remember once upon a time I'd post the odd question on Yahoo! Answers with the naive expectation that I might actually get a sensible response. You know, seeing as I did my level best to provide a decent reply and everything. Suffice it to say, I was disappointed many times, though never with such consistency as I had witnessed in the Malaysian section of Yahoo! Answers*. So sod it, when life gives you fail, the best thing to do is laugh at it. So, yah, I was well pleased to stumble across this:

http://www.yahooanswerfail.com/

The URL says it all. Seeing as I'm still on a high from the most ferocious scrap of my kendo career during the weekend, here's another site I found fairly uplifting:

http://www.fmylife.com/

Yes, laugh at their pain. And don't for a moment consider the possibility that, one day, you could be posting there, too...

* A special brand of fail indeed! It even fails to be the slightest bit funny...

Happiness is mandatory

Are you happy, Citizen?

happiness hat from Lauren McCarthy on Vimeo.

Ugh. Reminds me of a creepy old animation I once saw....

On the side: I note my previous post has attracted attention of the paranoid delusional conspiracy theorist variety. I'd respond, but the more closely I read it, the more I realize the only response such a dire mess of trolling gobbledegook deserves is this:

Have a great day!

GAH, there's squalene on my fingers!

There's been a message circulating round on Facebook from some bloke called George Mazoumellos re: the evils of swine flu vaccinations. I suppose maybe there are valid arguments against vaccination, especially given the ugly reputation of 'Big Pharma' in administering the occasional diabolical failure that was quickly hushed up, or indeed any number of crimes against humanity, as covered in Michael Moore's Sicko. As yet, however, I've seen no solid evidence to suggest the current swine flu vaccine doing the rounds has any adverse effects on humans to speak of.

Anyway, this Mazoumellos character has been spreading a message written in a style quite reminiscent of the ridiculous sensationalism often found in cheap tabloids, obviously looking to make the age-old sacrifice of integrity for fame. An excerpt:

"If the regular flu kills 40 000 plus per year, and the swine flu only killed 2/3 000 – then why are governments buying it in advance, giving it to us for free, and giving drug manufacturers immunity to legal cases against them? Does that make sense? No!

The swine flu vaccine contains 2 horribly dangerous compounds – one is called thimerosol. It is made 50% of mercury. It binds to receptors in your brain, and basically causes brain damage. Is it smart to be injected with thimerosol, and get brain damage, dropping 10 IQ points and going dumb, in order to avoid getting a flu that kills 95% less people than regular flu? No!

The other horrible ingredient is called squalene. Squalene accidentally tricks your immune system into killing your own cells, which creates auto-immune diseases like asthma, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and a bunch of diseases that we don't have a name for yet (because squalene hasn't been used for that long, and we have little data on its effects) – is it smart to inject yourself with that stuff, in order to avoid a relatively mild flu, like the swine flu? No!"

Alrighty then, that's quite a lot of rubbish to fit in only 3 paragraphs, so let's get to work debunking... Note that the message cited NO sources whatsoever, which pretty much makes the entire message worthless, from the point of view of a scientist. But let's take this at face value and compare it with independent facts and see what happens, shall we?

First up, statistics. He compares 40,000 killed by "normal" flu a year against 3,000 H1N1 mortalities to date. WHO says 250,000 to 500,000 are killed a year by flu. Assuming he had a source for the 40,000 figure, when compared with the WHO figure it could only mean the 40,000 figure is for a single country, which is more than a bit dishonest to compare with the global figure for H1N1, which, by the way is just under 6,000 to date. But anyway, pointing this out reinforces his point that 6,000 H1N1 deaths don't sound like much compared to half a million. What the heck, I'm feeling generous.

Now, 6,000 killed may not sound like much, until you consider that it's a newly discovered strain, first reported in April. And the year isn't even over yet. And if you've studied epidimiology or even played a little Pandemic, you'd know that a relatively low death toll at the early stages doesn't mean it won't get monstrously virulent later. As it is, the swine flu is notably more brutal than the usual strains we're used to. It is only sensible to snuff it out NOW, while we're lucky enough to actually have a vaccine to hand that works. As for that remark about the government giving it out for free, Mr Mazoumellos betrays a woeful ignorance of one of life's inevitabilities, known to the civilized as taxes.

Second, thimerosol, aka thiomersal. Yes, it's true that it's nasty and toxic and what-have-you. So's oxygen, by the way. The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of things we come into contact with that are hideously toxic (ever eaten an appleseed by mistake?) but we do not die from them. Why? Simply put, we're actually quite tuff and small quantities of toxic agents can often be expelled naturally. A study published online in Paediatrics laid out in great detail just how quickly thimerosol pops in and out again of the bodies of infants, with cumulative doses of up to ~160 micrograms of ethyl mercury. Now, if my maths is right, that translates to about 283 mcg of thiomersal in these babies with no ill effect. And the thiomersal content of the swine flu vaccine? 5 mcg, the last time I checked.

3rd, squalene. This one barely even deserves mention. Do you know where squalene is found? Here's a hint: ALL OVER YOU. What does the WHO have to say?

"The World Health Organization and the US Department of Defense have both published extensive reports that emphasize that squalene is a chemical naturally occurring in the human body, present even in oils of human fingerprints.

WHO goes further to explain that squalene has been present in over 22 million flu vaccines given to patients in Europe since 1997 and there have never been significant vaccine-related adverse events."

Ooh! Squalene, squalene! It's ALL OVER the place! Time to go live in a hamster ball! Pfft...

George's current address

George Mazoumellos, you fail. Big time. And you should be ashamed of yourself, but somehow, I doubt that's actually the case. Anyway, to the rest of you with access to the vaccine, go get jabbed. Needles aren't that scary, really. Here's a bit more from New Scientist on the matter.

Now, if you'd rather take your chances being on the unhappy end of the swine flu, that's your own lookout. If you're responsible about it and go find yourself a nice secluded corner to die in without infecting anyone, fine, go ahead. But a virus does what a virus does and if you get infected, you are a vector for passing it on to whoever who come into contact with. You are also a possible incubator for the virus to mutate, as viruses are wont to do, to a form that can infect all your vaccinated friends. Now that's just rude. Don't be a prick. Go get vaccinated.

You called your rocket what, now?

On one hand, I'm pleased to see that NASA's got a lovely new rocket to replace the space shuttle. On the other hand, I'm a bit worried that it's named after a Greek god of war and slaughter...

Satifying my curiousity...

I have French toast for breakfast fairly often, and a thought hit me today: Is it as French as the French fry? Which is to say, not even remotely so? So I peeped in Wikipedia, and here's what it had to say about some food that I'd suddenly become curious about.

French toast is not French. Surprise, surprise. According to the International House of Pancakes, French toast predates the 1st World War, and was called German toast in English speaking countries. Then the Kaiser did his thing and no-one liked Germans anymore and it "became" French. You know, because it happens to be next door. Or something like that. Wikipedia mentions that the French actually have their own version:

In France, Belgium, New Orleans, Acadiana, Newfoundland and the Congo a similar but distinctive food is called pain perdu, or "lost bread", since it is a way to reclaim stale, "lost", bread: hard bread is softened by dipping in a mixture of milk and eggs, then deep fried.

I think I like the sound of that. Hell, I like the look of it...


For the benefit of those reading who don't already know this, French fries are not French. Apparently they date back to 17th century Belgium, and were consumed by peasants living the Meuse Valley in place of wee little fishies. They became French following exposure of American troops to the Belgian troops during World War I. French was the official language of the Belgian army at the time, and the rest is history.

French dressing is not French. I was informed of this fact by a rightly indignant French chef. Apparently the term was invented in the late 19th century to keep American tongues from butchering the word vinaigrette.

And since I'm here, Welsh Rabbit is not rabbit. Wikipedia has a charming little story to go with that:

The first recorded use of the term Welsh rabbit was in 1725, but the origin of the term is unknown. It may be an ironic name coined in the days when the Welsh were notoriously poor: only better-off people could afford butcher's meat, and while in England rabbit was the poor man's meat, in Wales the poor man's meat was cheese.

You may be familiar with the term as 'rarebit' as opposed to 'rabbit'. Apparently this is the fault of Francis Grose, who coined the term erroneously in his 1785 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue* and, in the manner of certain memes, has managed to stick.

And now I'm off to do the litter. Oh, teh horror...

*Available for free on gutenberg.org!

So how left/right are you?

Took this test. Wasn't all that surprised with the result:
To put that in perspective:
And a couple more famous names:

So I'm in the same boat as Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Nice. And the present Pope is, like Robert Mugabe, well on his way to becoming another Stalin. Ahem.