Battleangel

Back to normal again. Had some time to kill so I sat down with the latest issues of Nature and National Geographic Magazine. A couple of things caught my interest and qualified as blog material.

Heavy Cost of Fat: The theme of this month’s NGM was obesity. Not so strange perhaps as the US is going critical with the rest of the western world to follow. Yeah, yeah I know, it’s an old subject that has been examined many a times before. What caught my interest this time was that NGM put the Atkins lifestyle back in its place. This type of non-science is alarming and has gone far enough. Instead of looking at the facts, people are being lead by the nose by various nefarious organizations, such as Atkins. In this case employing rather idiotic schemes such as ketosis and a low carb intake. It’s up there in the blue with Mozart for children, young geniuses, scientology, healing and Santa Claus. It makes me mad to see people abused and tricked like this. As the article points out, try using a Glycemic Index instead. And watch your calorie intake. It’s all that matters. As far as Atkins is concerned it works, but so does amphetamine.
Could people get any dumber? A fat pride parade that celebrates the No-Diet Day. Just as sick as Atkins, just on the other side of the scales. Sure, be proud, be ignorant. But don’t expect me to give a damn or pay your hospital bills. How pathetic.
Source: National Geographic Magazine August 2004

Sex under pressure: I stumbled upon something as surprising as a good book review in Nature. Now that is something you don’t see every day.
So, some crackpot author took a pot shot at Darwinian theory and its sub-disciplines. That is sooo trendy, right? Mr Obvious has just discovered that animals (especially homo sapiens) don’t engage in sex all the time. Oh no. That must spell the end for biology as we know it? No more selfish genes? Not quite. But it is filling some sort of void I guess, preaching to the anti-gene, anti-darwinian choir. Appealing to those that do not know any better. Thankfully Nature is not impressed.
It’s nice to see that someone takes a stand. As the review so gallantly points out, if that is what thin evidence the opponents are grasping. We need not be worried. However, the review doesn’t go so far as to foresee the repercussions on a grander scale. It is when science (flawed or sound) grabs a hold and appeals to the people that we have a real problem. More so of course if the evidence is largely circumstantial and the science rotten. The debate goes far beyond this book in question or the review in Nature. It’s a trend that is starting to show. Not for the first time throughout history. But nevertheless alarming.
Source: Nature430, 613 - 614 (05 Aug 2004) (subscription)

All in all this worries me. One cannot help but fear for another dark age of science. And also … I sometimes feel like I am now, as a social scientist, part of the same bad crop. The same radical Inquisition that is swiftly crushing all opposition. Lending my support to their struggle just by being here. Even if I resist and voice my opinion.
In religious terms, social scientists are doing the work of the devil. The once hopeful new science has regressed to a mere ghost of its potential. Inadvertently doing the world a great disservice by its very existence. Taking bold leaps of logic to justify their own existence. Bearing a strange grudge against natural science, in fact the whole natural world. Aiming to tear down structures before giving even a second to examine them. Trespassing on grounds that they do not have the skill, nor desire to understand. Employing a scorched-earth policy. There is indeed a common denominator here.

Having said that, it is not so that all of the social and humanistic field is pure conjecture. Statistically it cannot be so. But social scientists these days are suffering from one major delusion that is clouding their perception of the world. They believe (for the most part) in co-existing with their field of study. They let their field of study influence them. As such they are slaves under mass media and popular culture and ideals. They are lackeys to the people. Unable to step out of the box. As the world turns, they too turn with it. Just look at recent “research” on sexual roles and you’ll see what I mean. Not so unlike the “Sex under pressure” above. All of this is of course fairly obvious in itself. I just needed to voice my opinion.

SCIENTIA REGIT