Sci Friday

I finally got back to checking the science blogs that I read on a semi-regular basis. I thought I'd post the highlights:

Color, Movement, Shape and Form
From Bad Astronomy, is it a moon or a space station? And from Artsy Science, a picture that looks like feathers. It's not. :-) An artist who records and denigrates history all at once (I wish there was more than one example, but the article itself is quite interesting). Then from pretty pictures to how we see them, an article about the perception of color.

It's the Mind
First, a few discussing Alzheimer's. It could be Type III Diabetes, which at least gives options for treatment. Also singing seems to help. If this is backed up in future studies, I would guess that it involves different paths in the brain that can be used to accomplish what the deteriorating ones did formerly.

Speaking of memory, two different studies highlight the importance of being able to filter out unimportant details. One involved rats; the other, humans.

And more on meditation. Looks like meditators experience a wide range of benefits; this article mentions that meditators have stronger immune systems. Correlation vs. causation will have to wait, since they don't mention a randomized study. But it's still impressive...

In the philosopher's corner, how well can we know our minds? Now, it seems to me that this article misses an important distinction: the difference between "knowing" and "labelling" or "articulating." You feel pain. You know that as soon as the message reaches the brain. If it's sharp, you'll react before conscious awareness comes. If it's mild, you'll probably look down to try and figure out what's causing it. That indicates knowledge. A moment or so later, you might give conscious recognition to the experience, but the knowledge was there already. Perhaps the article assumes "conscious knowledge." *shrugs*

Lastly, a rather virulent article from an anti-theist scientist. Parts of it do make sense. For instance, "People of all creeds naturally recognize the primacy of reasons and resort to reasoning and evidence wherever they can. When rational inquiry supports the creed, it is always championed; when it poses a threat, it is derided." However, he descends into irrational gibbering, posting quotes from pro-theist scientists and stating they are ridiculous without ever explaining why. Still, he does make some good points. He closes with: "What we need—desperately—is a public discourse that systematically encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. What we do not need are more scientists who are willing to demonstrate that even well-educated people can swallow the false certainties and abject consolations of religion without gagging." My complaint about this variety of atheist is that they are as guilty of irrationality as the extreme fundamentalists. If people hold beliefs neither confirmed nor denied by science, they are condemned (by such atheists), when the appropriate position would be neutrality. Yet the atheist also holds a belief neither confirmed nor denied by science: that no god exists. The anti-theist takes this a step further to believe that all belief in any sort of god is evil.