News Feeds

Researchers have developed a sustainable catalyst that increases its activity during use while converting carbon dioxide (CO2) into valuable products. This discovery offers a blueprint for designing next-generation electrocatalysts.

In patients with symptoms such as irregular heartbeats, dizziness, or fainting, or in individuals that physicians suspect may have atrial fibrillation, many days of ECGs may be required for diagnosis -- 'long-term ECG recordings'. These recordings must then undergo a time-consuming and human resource-intensive review to identify heart rhythm abnormalities. In a large international study, researchers tested whether an AI model can replace humans in analyzing long-term ECG recordings. The results: 14 times fewer missed diagnoses by the AI.

Artificial Intelligence of Things (AIoT) is becoming immensely popular because of its widespread applications. In a groundbreaking study, researchers present a new AIoT framework called MSF-Net for accurately recognizing human activities using WiFi signals. The framework utilizes a novel approach that combines different signal processing techniques and a deep learning architecture to overcome challenges like environmental interference and achieve high recognition accuracy.

Artificial Intelligence of Things (AIoT) is becoming immensely popular because of its widespread applications. In a groundbreaking study, researchers present a new AIoT framework called MSF-Net for accurately recognizing human activities using WiFi signals. The framework utilizes a novel approach that combines different signal processing techniques and a deep learning architecture to overcome challenges like environmental interference and achieve high recognition accuracy.

Psychologists warn that AI's perceived lack of human experience and genuine understanding may limit its acceptance to make higher-stakes moral decisions.

Researchers have designed an alternative, autonomous observational method to monitor the Arctic's melting ice, which holds promise for improving the autonomy of marine vehicles, aiding in maritime missions, and gaining a deeper understanding of how melting Arctic sea ice affects marine ecosystems. Their conceptual design features a small waterplane area twin hull vessel that acts as a docking and charging station for autonomous underwater vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles, using solar and turbine energy to enable continuous monitoring.

Although the climate goals set by the Paris Agreement are based on the long-term average temperature, one year of high temperatures might be a sign that the 1.5°C threshold has already been reached

Seismic waves suggest the planet's solid inner core is being pulled out of shape – and it has undergone these changes over just a few decades

Unexpected epochs of stillness that punctuate the cosmic timeline could offer a natural explanation for dark matter and many other unsolved astronomical mysteries

Well, I’ll treat you to one more item about indigenous knowledge in New Zealand, this time when it clashes with modern science! It turns out that the Māori are beefing about there being too many satellites in the sky, and beefing for two reasons. First, this raises the possibility that the night sky might be changed, making it lighter, and that might make celestial navigation more difficult. Not that the Māori rely on that any more (actually, their Polynesian and SE Asian ancestors developed it), but their historical practice from hundreds of years ago might be made more difficult.

Second, the satellites are somehow said to interfere with a Māori ritual in which the steam from cooked food is allowed to float up toward the stars. (The ritual arose to give thanks for a good harvest.)  It is not clear to me how satellites would interfere with that, so you’ll have to ask the Māori.

Click below to read the excerpt from Stuff, a New Zealand news site:

Here’s the beefing about the ceremony (I’ve added translations):

A Māori scientist has warned our skies could become clogged with up to 100,000 satellites in the next five years – threatening thousands of years of Māori knowledge in the process.

The pollution could get so bad that stars seen by Māori ancestors would no longer be visible to the naked eye.

Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites have already interfered with a tuku wairua [food/steam] ceremony during Matariki, when whānau [members of a family group] who have died are released to the stars; while satellite proliferation threatens traditional waka hourua navigation [celestial navigation using double-hulled canoes].

Scientist, and Indigenous astronomy expert Te Kahuratai Moko-Painting is part of Sustainable Space – a group seeking to save Earth’s lower orbit, under 2000km, from uncontrolled development.

Moko-Painting often shows up in similar items, for he’s quite a vociferous activist.

Moko-Painting said about 15,000 satellites have been sent into space since the 1950s – about 7000 of those are still functional, and about 10,000 are still in space.

“Between 2022 when these estimates were made, and 2030, it’s estimated that we’ll have between 60,000 to 100,000 satellites in orbit.”

He said the about-3000 Starlink satellites in orbit were “already causing issues”.

. . . He got involved in the issue after the first Matariki public holiday in 2022, when he joined his wife’s whānau at Waahi Pā in Huntly for the hautapu (feeding the stars with an offering of kai [food].

“And just as we were doing our tuku wairua, just as we were sending on those who had passed on from that year, we had 21 Starlink satellites cutting through, right past the path of Matariki [the Pleiades star cluster.”

Apparently people thought that this was the stars’ response to the ceremony, and was propitious, but Moko-Painting—who admits that Starlink is important in communicating with rural communities—still has a beef:

“And those who knew would just say ‘no, that’s actually this man who loves the technology for launching satellites but makes them far too bright’ … and he does them in this line in an eye-catching kind of way, and that’s completely unregulated.”

I doubt that people will stop launching satellites because it somehow interferes with this ceremony. But wait! There’s more! As I said, there’s a possibility that too many satellites may interfere with celestial navigation, which only a few Māori still practice. But this is only a hypothesis, and hasn’t been shown, mainly because only a few stalwarts still use celestial navigation, and only as a way to keep alive that ancestral skill:

Even in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a waka hourua, double-hulled waka used for voyaging, the night sky is 10% brighter than it used to be, Moko-Painting said. “So one could argue that 10% of what our tūpuna could see with their eyes while navigating is no longer visible to us.”

Master navigator Jack Thatcher has travelled tens of thousands of kilometres on waka hourua, as a guiding light that keeps his crews alive.

The Pacific covers a third of the planet. Thatcher’s journeys – using only stars, ocean swells and birds as guides – include a 3200km trip from Aotearoa to Rarotonga, which is only 67km wide.

. . . Having 100,000 satellites in orbit might be good for “pinpoint accuracy” all around the world, but those who rely on the stars for guidance won’t know which is a satellite and which isn’t.

“They’ll obliterate most of the patterns that we all depend on to help us find our way.”

ADVERTISEMENT AD Advertise with Stuff

He said the satellites were already being discussed in the voyaging community. Light pollution wasn’t the only problem – “eventually they’ll be rubbish”, Thatcher said.

“We’re entering that zone of global extinction, because we’ve polluted our planet, now we want to pollute our heavens.”

While the technology might be used instead to navigate the oceans, “that’s not the point”, he said.

“Indigenous knowledge is something that is a self-determination thing.”

It’s not clear to me, though, that if the night sky is 10% brighter than before, this would somehow efface or even impede celestial navigation. They give no evidence, but some want to kvetch about it anyway, because it apparently erases the achievements of the Māori’s ancestors (not the Māori themselves):

Māori know who they are because of their ancestors’ achievements. “And now you’re going to take that all away from us.”

The first waka [canoe] in this country used navigation knowledge that ancestors accrued over millennia, Thatcher said – travelling from Southeast Asia to Aotearoa almost 6000 years later.

Essentially, he said, if you can no longer navigate the oceans through the stars “it becomes book knowledge only”.

ADVERTISEMENT AD Advertise with Stuff

“Indigenous identity helps people to be who they are and enables them to be proud of who they are, because of their ancestral knowledge that they still hold on to.”

The whole idea of keeping indigenous knowledge alive was that “we’re not dependent on any technology”.

So Moko-Painting has joined a group of scientists calling for holding back on launching satellites.  The article ends abruptly:

SpaceX, which operates Starlink, did not reply to queries at time of publication.

The problem with all this is that these two problems haven’t been demonstrated. The navigation impediment is a theoretical possibility and won’t be known until people like Thatcher try it.  Since they can still do it successfully, even with all those satellites up there, I think this is not a serious concern. As for the satellites interfering with the smoke rising to the stars, that is pure superstition and doesn’t command concern from any rational person.

This is admittedly a provocative title coming from a particle physicist, and you might think it tongue-in-cheek. But it’s really not.

We live in a cosmos with quantum physics, relativity, gravity, and a bunch of elementary fields, whose ripples we call elementary particles. These elementary “particles” include objects like electrons, photons, quarks, Higgs bosons, etc. Now if, in ordinary conversation in English, we heard the words “elementary” and “particle” used together, we would probably first imagine that elementary particles are tiny balls, shrunk down to infinitesimal size, making them indivisible and thus elementary — i.e., they’re not made from anything smaller because they’re as small as could be. As mere points, they would be objects whose diameter is zero.

But that’s not what they are. They can’t be.

I’ll tell this story in stages. In my last post, I emphasized that after the Newtonian view of the world was overthrown in the early 1900s, there emerged the quantum physics of the 1920s, which did a very good job of explaining atomic physics and a variety of other phenomena. In atomic physics, the electron is indeed viewed as a particle, though with behavior that is quite unfamiliar. The particle no longer travels on a path through physical space, and instead its behavior — where it is, and where it is going — is described probabilistically, using a wave function that exists in the space of possibilities.

But as soon became clear, 1920s quantum physics forbids the very existence of elementary particles.

In 1920s Quantum Physics, True Particles Do Not Exist

To claim that particles do not exist in 1920s quantum physics might seem, at first, absurd, especially to people who took a class on the subject. Indeed, in my own blog post from last week, I said, without any disclaimers, that “1920s quantum physics treats an electron as a particle with position x and momentum p that are never simultaneously definite.” (Recall that momentum is about motion; in pre-quantum physics, the momentum of an object is its mass m times its speed v.) Unless I was lying to you, my statement would seem to imply that the electron is allowed to have definite position x if its momentum p is indefinite, and vice versa. And indeed, that’s what 1920s quantum physics would imply.

To see why this is only half true, we’re going to examine two different perspectives on how 1920s quantum physics views location and motion — position x and momentum p.

1. There is a perfect symmetry between position and momentum (today’s post)
2. There is a profound asymmetry between position and momentum (next post)

Despite all the symmetry, the asymmetry turns out to be essential, and we’ll see (in the next post) that it implies particles of definite momentum can exist, but particles of definite position cannot… not in 1920s quantum physics, anyway.

The Symmetry Between Location and Motion

The idea of a symmetry between location and motion may seem pretty weird at first. After all, isn’t motion the change in something’s location? Obviously the reverse is not generally true: location is not the change in something’s motion! Instead, the change in an object’s motion is called its “acceleration” (a physics word that includes what in English we’d call acceleration, deceleration and turning.) In what sense are location and motion partners?

The Uncertainty Principle of Werner Heisenberg

In a 19th century reformulation of Newton’s laws of motion that was introduced by William Rowan Hamilton — keeping the same predictions, but rewriting the math in a new way — there is a fundamental symmetry between position x and momentum p. This way of looking at things is carried on into quantum physics, where we find it expressed most succinctly through Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which specifically tells us that we cannot know a object’s position and momentum simultaneously.

This might sound vague, but Heisenberg made his principle very precise. Let’s express our uncertainty in the object’s position as Δx. (Heisenberg defined this as the average value of x2 minus the squared average value of x. Less technically, it means that if we think the particle is probably at a position x0, an uncertainty of Δx means that the particle has a 95% chance of being found anywhere between x0-2Δx and x0+2Δx.) Let’s similarly express our uncertainty about the object’s momentum (which, again, is naively its speed times its mass) as Δp. Then in 1920s quantum physics, it is always true that

• Δp Δx > h / (4π)

where h is Planck’s constant, the mascot of all things quantum. In other words, if we know our uncertainty on an object’s position Δx, then the uncertainty on its momentum cannot be smaller than a minimum amount:

• Δp > h / (4π Δx) .

Thus, the better we know an object’s position, implying a smaller Δx, the less we can know about the object’s momentum — and vice versa.

This can be taken to extremes:,

• if we knew an object’s motion perfectly — if Δp is zero — then Δx = h / (4π Δp) = infinity, in which case we have no idea where the particle might be
• if we knew an object’s location perfectly — if Δx is zero — then Δp = h / (4π Δx) = infinity, in which case we have no idea where or how fast the particle might be going.

You see everything is perfectly symmetric: the more I know about the object’s location, the less I can know about its motion, and vice versa.

(Note: My knowledge can always be worse. If I’ve done a sloppy measurement, I could be very uncertain about the object’s location and very uncertain about its location. The uncertainty principle contains a greater-than sign (>), not an equals sign. But I can never be very certain about both at the same time.)

An Object with Known Motion

What does it mean for an object to have zero uncertainty in its position or its motion? Quantum physics of the 1920s asserts that any system is described by a wave function that tells us the probability for where we might find it and what it might be doing. So let’s ask: what form must a wave function take to describe a single particle with perfectly known momentum p?

The physical state corresponding to a single particle with perfectly known momentum P0 , which is often denoted |P0>, has a wave function

times an overall constant which we don’t have to care about. Notice the ; this is a complex number at each position x. I’ve plotted the real and imaginary parts of this function in Fig. 1 below. As you see, both the real (red) and imaginary (blue) parts look like a simple wave, of infinite extent and of constant wavelength and height.

Figure 1: In red and blue, the real and imaginary parts of the wave function describing a particle of known momentum (up to an overall constant). In black is the square of the wave function, showing that the particle has equal probability to be at each possible location.

Now, what do we learn from the wave function about where this object is located? The probability for finding the object at a particular position X is given by the absolute value of the wave function squared. Recall that if I have any complex number z = x + i y, then its absolute value squared |z2| equals |x2|+|y2|. Therefore the probability to be at X is proportional to

(again multiplied by an overall constant.) Notice, as shown by the black line in Fig. 1, this is the same no matter what X is, which means the object has an equal probability to be at any location we choose. And so, we have absolutely no idea of where it is; as far as we’re concerned, its position is completely random.

An Object with Known Location

As symmetry requires, we can do the same for a single object with perfectly known position X0. The corresponding physical state, denoted |X0>, has a wave function

again times an overall constant. Physicists call this a “delta function”, but it’s just an infinitely narrow spike of some sort. I’ve plotted something like it in Figure 2, but you should imagine it being infinitely thin and infinitely high, which obviously I can’t actually draw.

This wave function tells us that the probability that the object is at any point other than X0 is equal to zero. You might think the probability of it being at X0 is infinity squared, but the math is clever and the probability that it is at X0 is exactly 1. So if the particle is in the physical state |X0>, we know exactly where it is: it’s at position X0.

Figure 2: The wave function describing a particle of known position (up to an overall constant). The square of the wave function is in black, showing that the particle has zero probability to be anywhere except at the spike. The real and imaginary parts (in red and blue) are mostly covered by the black line.

What do we know about its motion? Well, we saw in Fig. 1 that to know an object’s momentum perfectly, its wave function should be a spread-out, simple wave with a constant wavelength. This giant spike, however, is as different from nice simple waves as it could possibly be. So |X0> is a state in which the momentum of the particle, and thus its motion, is completely unknown. [To prove this vague argument using math, we would use a Fourier transform; we’ll get more insight into this in a later post.]

So we have two functions, as different from each other as they could possibly be,

• Fig. 1 describing an object with a definite momentum and completely unknown position, and
• Fig. 2 describing an object with definite position and completely unknown momentum.

CAUTION: We might be tempted to think: “oh, Fig. 1 is the wave, and Fig. 2 is the particle”. Indeed the pictures make this very tempting! But no. In both cases, we are looking at the shape of a wave function that describes where an object, perhaps a particle, is located. When people talk about an electron being both wave and particle, they’re not simply referring to the relation between momentum states and position states; there’s more to it than that.

CAUTION 2: Do not identify the wave function with the particle it describes!!! It is not true that each particle has its own wave function. Instead, if there were two particles, there would still be only one wave function, describing the pair of particles. See this post and this one for more discussion of this crucial point.

Objects with More or Less Uncertainty

We can gain some additional intuition for this by stepping back from our extreme |P0> and |X0> states, and looking instead at compromise states that lie somewhere between the extremes. In these states, neither p nor x is precisely known, but the uncertainty of one is as small as it can be given the uncertainty of the other. These special states are often called “Gaussian wave packets”, and they are ideal for showing us how Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle plays out.

In Fig. 3 I’ve shown a wave function for a particle whose position is poorly known but whose momentum is better known. This wave function looks like a trimmed version of the |P0> state of Fig. 1, and indeed the momentum of the particle won’t be too far from P0. The position is clearly centered to the right of the vertical axis, but it has a large probability to be on the left side, too. So in this state, Δp is small and Δx is large.

Figure 3: A wave function similar to that of Fig. 1, describing a particle that has an almost definite momentum and a rather uncertain position.

In Fig. 4 I’ve shown a wave function of a wave packet that has the situation reversed: its position is well known and its momentum is not. It looks like a smeared out version of the |X0> state in Fig. 2, and so the particle is most likely located quite close to X0. We can see the wave function shows some wavelike behavior, however, indicating the particle’s momentum isn’t completely unknown; nevertheless, it differs greatly from the simple wave in Fig. 1, so the momentum is pretty uncertain. So here, Δx is small and Δp is large.

Figure 4: A wave function similar to that of Fig. 2, describing a particle that has an almost definite position and a highly uncertain momentum.

In this way we can interpolate however we like between Figs. 1 and 2, getting whatever uncertainty we want on momentum and position as long as they are consistent with Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation.

Wave functions in the space of possible momenta There’s even another more profound, but somewhat more technical, way to see the symmetry in action; click here if you are interested.

As I’ve emphasized recently (and less recently), the wave function of a system exists in the space of possibilities for that system. So far I’ve been expressing this particle’s wave function as a space of possibilities for the particle’s location — in other words, I’ve been writing it, and depicting it in Figs. 1 and 2, as Ψ(x). Doing so makes it more obvious what the probabilities are for where the particle might be located, but to understand what this function means for what the particle’s motion takes some reasoning.

But I could instead (thanks to the symmetry between position and momentum) write the wave function in the space of possibilities for the particle’s motion! In other words, I can take the state |P0>, in which the particle has definite momentum, and write it either as Ψ(x), shown in Fig. 1, or as Ψ(p), shown in Fig. 1a.

Figure 1a: The wave function of Fig. 1, written in the space of possibilities of momenta instead of the space of possibilities of position; i.e., the horizontal axis show the particle’s momentum p, not its position x as is the case in Figs. 1 and 2. This shows the particle’s momentum is definitely known. Compare this with Fig. 2, showing a different wave function in which the particle’s position is definitely known.

Remarkably, Fig. 1a looks just like Fig. 2 — except for one crucial thing. In Fig. 2, the horizontal axis is the particle’s position. In Fig. 1a, however, the horizontal axis is the particle’s momentum — and so while Fig. 2 shows a wave function for a particle with definite position, Fig. 1a shows a wave function for a particle with definite momentum, the same wave function as in Fig. 1.

We can similarly write the wave function of Fig. 2 in the space of possibilities for the particle’s position, and not surprisingly, the resulting Fig. 2a looks just like Fig. 1, except that its horizontal axis represents p, and so in this case we have no idea what the particle’s momentum is — neither the particle’s speed nor its direction.

Fig. 2a: As in Fig. 1a, the wave function in Fig. 2 written in terms of the particle’s momentum p.

The relationship between Fig. 1 and Fig. 1a is that each is the Fourier transform of the other [where the momentum is related to the inverse wavelength of the wave obtained in the transform.] Similarly, Figs. 2 and 2a are each other’s Fourier transforms.

In short, the wave function for the state |P0> (as a function of position) in Fig. 1 looks just like the wave function for the state |X0> (as a function of momentum) in Fig. 2a, and a similar relation holds for Figs. 2 and 1a. Everything is symmetric!

The Symmetry and the Particle…

So, what’s this all got to do with electrons and other elementary particles? Well, if a “particle” is really and truly a particle, an object of infinitesimal size, then we certainly ought to be able to put it, or at least imagine it, in a position state like |X0>, in which its position is clearly X0 with no uncertainty. Otherwise how could we ever even tell if its size is infinitesimal? (This is admittedly a bit glib, but the rough edges to this argument won’t matter in the end.)

That’s where this symmetry inherent in 1920s quantum physics comes in. We do in fact see states of near-definite momentum — of near-definite motion. We can create them pretty easily, for instance in narrow electron beams, where the electrons have been steered by electric and magnetic fields so they have very precisely defined momentum. Making position states is trickier, but it would seem they must exist, thanks to the symmetry of momentum and position.

But they don’t. And that’s thanks to a crucial asymmetry between location and motion that we’ll explore next time.

A rocky planet less than half the mass of Earth seems to have an atmosphere made almost entirely of sulphur dioxide – this could be due to a huge amount of volcanic activity

It’s probably not a surprise that a blog author dedicated to critical thinking and neuroscience feels that misinformation is one of the most significant threats to society, but I really to think this. Misinformation (false, misleading, or erroneous information) and disinformation (deliberately misleading information) have the ability to cause a disconnect between the public and reality. In a democracy this severs the feedback loop between voters and their representatives. In an authoritarian government it a tool of control and repression. In either case citizens cannot freely choose their representatives. This is also the problem with extreme jerrymandering – in which politicians choose their voters rather than the other way around.

Misinformation and disinformation have always existed in human society, and it is an interesting question whether or not they have increased recently and to what extent social media has amplified them. Regardless, it is useful to understand what factors contribute to susceptibility to misinformation in order to make people more resilient to it. We all benefit if the typical citizen has the ability to discern reality and identify fake news when they see it.

There has been a lot of research on this question over the years, and I have discussed it often, but it’s always useful to try to gather together years of research into a single systematic review and/or meta-analysis. It’s possible I and others may be selectively choosing or remembering parts of the research to reinforce a particular view – a problem that can be solved with a thorough analysis of all existing data. And of course I must point out that such reviews are subject to their own selection bias, but if properly done such bias should be minimal. The best case scenario is for there to be multiple systematic reviews, so I can get a sense of the consensus of those reviews, spreading out bias as much as possible in the hopes it will average out in the end.

With that in mind, there is a recent meta-analysis of studies looking at the demographics of susceptibility to misinformation.  The results mostly confirm what I recall from looking at the individual studies over the years, but there are some interesting wrinkles. They looked at studies which used the news headline paradigm – having subjects answer if they think a headline is true or not, “totaling 256,337 unique choices made by 11,561 participants across 31 experiments.” That’s a good chunk of data. First, people were significantly better than chance at determining which headlines were true (68.51%) or false 67.24%). That’s better than it being a coin flip, but still, about a third of the time subjects in these studies could not tell real from fake headlines. Given the potential number of false headlines people encounter daily, this can result in massive misinformation.

What factors contributed to susceptibility to misinformation, or protected against it? One factor that many people may find surprising, but which I have seen many times over the years, is that education level alone conveyed essentially no benefit. This also aligns with the pseudoscience literature – education level (until you get to advanced science degrees) does not protect against believing pseudoscience. You might also (and I do) view this as a failure of the education system, which is supposed to be teaching critical thinking. This does not appear to be happening to any significant degree.

There were some strong predictors. People who have an analytical thinking style were more accurate on both counts – identifying true and false headlines, but with a bit of a false headline bias. This factor comes up often in the literature. An analytical thinking style also correlates with lower belief in conspiracy theories, for example. Can we teach an analytical thinking style? Yes, absolutely. People have a different inherent tendency to rely on analytical vs intuitive thinking, but almost by definition analytical thinking is a conscious deliberate act and is a skill that can be taught. Perhaps analytical thinking is the thing that schools are not teaching students but should be.

Older age also was associated with higher overall discrimination, and also with a false headline bias, meaning that their default was to be skeptical rather than believing. It’s interesting to think about the interplay between these two things – in a world with mostly false headlines, having a strong skeptical bias will lead to greater accuracy. Disbelieving becomes a good first approximation of reality. The research, as far as I can see, did not attempt to replicate reality in terms of the proportion of true to false headlines. This means that the false bias may be more or less useful in the real world than in the studies, depending on the misinformation ecosystem.

Also being a self-identified Democrat correlated with greater accuracy and also a false bias, while self-identifying as a Republican was associated with lower accuracy and a truth bias (tending to believe headlines were true). Deeply exploring why this is the case is beyond the scope of this article (this is a complex question), but let me just throw out there a couple of the main theories. One is that Republicans are already self-selected for some cognitive features, such as intuitive thinking. Another is that the current information landscape is not uniform from a partisan perspective, and is essentially selecting for people who tend to believe headlines.

Some other important factors emerged from this data. One is that a strong predictor of believing headlines was partisan alignment – people tended to believe headlines that aligned with their self-identified partisan label. This is due to “motivated reflection” (what I generally refer to as motivated reasoning).  The study also confirmed something I have also encountered previously – that those with higher analytical thinking skills actually displayed more motivated reasoning when combined with partisan bias. Essentially smarter people have the potential to be better and more confident at their motivated reasoning. This is a huge reason for caution and humility – motivated reasoning is a powerful force, and being smart not only does not necessarily protect us from it, but may make it worse.

Finally, the single strongest predictor of accepting false headlines as true was familiarity. If a subject had encountered the claim previously, they were much more likely to believe it. This is perhaps the most concerning factor to come out of this review, because it means that mere repetition may be enough to get most people to accept a false reality. This has big implications for the “echochamber” effect on both mainstream and social media. If you get most of your news from one or a few ideologically aligned outlets, you essentially are allowing them to craft your perception of reality.

From all this data, what (individually and as a society) should we do about this, if anything?

First, I think we need to seriously consider how critical thinking is taught (or not taught) in schools. Real critical thinking skills need to be taught at every level and in almost every subject, but also as a separate dedicated course (perhaps combined with some basic scientific literacy and media savvy). Hey, one can dream.

The probability of doing something meaningful in terms of regulating media seems close to zero. That ship has sailed. The fairness doctrine is gone. We live in the proverbial wild west of misinformation, and this is not likely to change anytime soon. Therefore, individually, we can protect ourselves by being skeptical, working our analytical thinking skills, checking our own biases and motivated reasoning, and not relying on a few ideologically aligned sources of news. One good rule of thumb is to be especially skeptical of any news that reinforces your existing biases. But dealing with a societal problem on an individual level is always a tricky proposition.

The post Who Believes Misinformation first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

There are many theories about how dynamics in the early solar system led to the cosmic neighbourhood we now inhabit, but beyond computer simulations, direct evidence to support them is hard to come by – that's where meteorites come in

Clothes and fishing nets that are made of nylon often end up in landfill or dumped in oceans, but a new way to break down the plastic could improve recycling

Albert Einstein himself thought that the eponymous Einstein ring would be impossible to observe, but the Euclid telescope has picked one up just 600 million light years from Earth

Friday, the Trump administration slashed indirect costs associated with NIH grants. What does this mean, and why could it be so disastrous for biomedical research?

The post DOGE vs. the NIH: Say goodbye to the greatest engine of biomedical research ever created first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

I wish I had a happier post for number 30,000, but you’re stuck with this one. However, it’s in line with the kind of stuff I’ve been writing about for a while, so it’s appropriate.

Today we must deal with a letter from the Presidents of three organismal evolution and ecology societies (The Society for the Study of Evolution, American Society of Naturalists, and the Society of Systematic Biologists), a Diktat declaring that biological sex is not binary, exactly as they did in 2018 (same societies, almost the same statement).  Both letters were also responses to statements by the U.S. government headed by Trump, taking issue with the government’s position that sex is binary. HHS incorrectly used genitalia as an earlier criterion for what was binary, but Trump’s new Executive Order uses an accurate definition of sex, one based on whether an individual’s reproductive apparatus is set up to produce large immobile or small mobile gametes. (I guess I should make the requisite disclaimer that while I agree with much but not all of Trump’s statement, that doesn’t mean I endorse Trump!)

My critique of the 2018 statement is posted at this site. I took the position that scientific societies shouldn’t take ideological stands unless they are attacking an ideology that damages the mission of the society itself, and are making a statement that corrects an incorrect but widespread view.  Well, this again applies here: these three societies are attacking a biological fact: the binary definition of biological sex, something well within the ambit of biology societies. The problem is that, as in 2018, the three societies are using misleading and false arguments to show that biological sex is a spectrum.  Further, as in 2018, the motivation for this statement does not appear to be a scientifically-based attempt to correct government misinformation, but rather seems to be ideological.  In fact, biologists have recognized sex as binary (with a few very rare exceptions) since the late nineteenth century, and have based the binary conclusion on the fact that all animals and plants produce two types of gametes, with no intermediates (see below for references).

The desperate attempt in this letter, and the one in 2018, to show that sex is a spectrum intends, I think, to buttress those people who either feel they don’t belong in one of the two sexes, are transsexual (a behavior that assumes two sexes) or feel that they are somewhere in between—or even members of neither sex. But the attempt is misguided, for, as I’ve said repeatedly, morality, as The Naturalistic Fallacy and The Appeal to Nature Fallacy argue, should not be strongly based on biological reality. Observing nature does not tell us what is right or wrong, or specify how we should behave towards others.

However, the 2018 and present letters, instantiate a third falacy—what Luana Maroja and I call the “reverse naturalistic fallacy” described in our Skeptical Inquirer paper (bolding is mine below):

Both fallacies lead to the same errors. First, if we condition our politics and ethics on what we know about nature, then our politics and ethics become malleable to changes in what we discover about nature later. For example, the observation that female bonobos rub each other’s genitals as a bonding behavior has been used to justify why human homosexuality is neither offensive nor immoral. Bonobo behavior is, after all, “natural.” (Similar same-sex behaviors have been reported in many species and have been used to the same end.) But what if no such behavior had been seen in any nonhuman species? Or what if the bonobo observation was shown to be wrong? Would this make homosexual behavior immoral or even criminal? Of course not, because enlightened views of homosexuality rest not on parallels with nature but on ethics, which tells us that there’s nothing immoral about consensual sex between adults.

Second, we must realize that many behaviors that are “natural” because they’re found in other species would be considered repugnant or immoral in our own. These include infanticide, robbery, and extra-pair copulation. As one of us wrote, “If the gay cause is somehow boosted by parallels from nature, then so are the causes of child-killers, thieves and adulterers.” But we don’t really derive our morality or ideology from nature. Instead, we pick and choose those behaviors in other species that happen to resemble a morality we already have. (People do exactly the same thing—ignoring the bad behaviors and lauding the good ones—when they pretend to derive morality from religious texts such as the Bible.)

All the biological misconceptions we’ve discussed involve forcing preconceived beliefs onto nature. This inverts an old fallacy into a new one, which we call the reverse appeal to nature. Instead of assuming that what is natural must be good, this fallacy holds that “what is good must be natural.” It demands that you must see the natural world through lenses prescribed by your ideology. If you are a gender activist, you must see more than two biological sexes. If you’re a strict egalitarian, all groups must be behaviorally identical and their ways of knowing equally valid. And if you’re an anti-hereditarian—a blank slater who sees genetic differences as promoting eugenics and racism—then you must find that genes can have only trivial and inconsequential effects on the behavior of groups and individuals. This kind of bias violates the most important rule of science, famously expressed by Richard Feynman: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Thus the latest letter, like the earlier one, is apparently written to try to convince people that in reality sex is not binary in nature, thereby buttressing gender-activist ideology.  It is not meant to clarify mistaken biological views. In fact, the letters muddy the waters by presenting a misguided view of sex and giving it the imprimatur of biological societies. As we’ve learned so often recently, though, what scientific societies and journals say often flouts the truth, intended to be ideological rather than scientific.

The problem, then, is not that the societies are making a political statement about biology. The problem is twofold. First, the societies’ attempt to buttress their biological argument is wrong, involving a lot of misleading assertions—all in three short paragraphs.

Second, the Presidents of the Society say they are speaking not only for the 3500 scientists who belong to their organizations, but also for the majority of biologists, saying that their conception of sex represents a scientific “consensus”.   It does not, nor do they know this. They did not poll their members before issuing their statement, and they buttress their argument by citing just two papers, one a very short Scientific American op-ed showing that the development of biological sex is complex and can be derailed by a number of mutations, the other a Nature paper by a freelance science journalist who uses a similar argument: the process of sex determination is “complex.” Indeed it is, but development is always complex, and yet, remarkably, evolution has channeled it into two pathways with similar destinations in all animals and vascular plants, producing, by a variety of developmental processes, two types of individuals in these species, one producing sperm and the other eggs. And that journalist, as you see below, doesn’t support the statement at all! Did they even bother to check that? (h/t: a reader below):

No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.

— Claire Ainsworth (@ClaireAinsworth) July 21, 2017

The best refutation of the letter below is actually Richard Dawkins’s Substack piece on the binary nature of sex (excerpted from a forthcoming essay), “Is the male female divide a social construct or a scientific reality?” I recommend that you read it after you read the letter below. But I’ll give one quote from the piece first, showing Dawkins presenting the “Universal Biological Definition” (UBD) of sex:

It is no idle whim, no mere personal preference, that leads biologists to define the sexes by the UBD. It is rooted deep in evolutionary history. The instability of isogamy [the condition in which all individuals have gametes of the same size], leading to extreme anisogamy [the condition in which individuals have gametes of different sizes, meaning two], is what brought males and females into the world in the first place. Anisogamy has dominated reproduction, mating systems, social systems, for probably two billion years. All other ways to define the sexes fall afoul of numerous exceptions. Sex chromosomes come and go through evolutionary time. Profligate gamete-spewing into the sea gives over to paired-off copulation and vice versa. Sex organs grow and shrink and grow again as the aeons go by, or as we jump from phylum to phylum across the animal kingdom. Sometimes one sex exclusively cares for the young, seldom the other, often both, often neither. Harem systems change places with faithful monogamy or rampant promiscuity. Psychological concomitants of sexuality change like the wind. Amid a rainbow of sexual habits, parental practices, and role reversals, the one thing that remains steadfastly constant is anisogamy. One sex produces gametes that are much smaller, and much more numerous, than the other. That is all ye know of sex differences and all ye need to know, as Keats might have only slightly exaggerated if he’d been an evolutionary biologist.

On to the letter, and I’ll try to be brief since Richard’s piece shows the fallacies inherent in their defense of a “spectrum” of biological sexes. The letter is indented, and you can see the original by clicking the title below:

Policy: Letter to the US President and Congress on the Scientific Understanding of Sex and Gender

Contributed by kjm34 on Feb 06, 2025 – 11:35 PM

President Donald J Trump
Washington, DC

Members of the US Congress
Washington, DC

February 5, 2025

RE: Scientific Understanding of Sex and Gender

Dear President Trump and Members of the US Congress,

As scientists, we write to express our concerns about the Executive Order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government”. That Order states first, that “there are two sexes…[which] are not changeable”. The Order goes on to state that sex is determined at conception and is based on the size of the gamete that the resulting individual will produce. These statements are contradicted by extensive scientific evidence.

Scientific consensus defines sex in humans as a biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up sex. Accordingly, sex (and gendered expression) is not a binary trait. While some aspects of sex are bimodal, variation along the continuum of male to female is well documented in humans through hundreds of scientific articles. Such variation is observed at both the genetic level and at the individual level (including hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, as well as genital morphology). Beyond the incorrect claim that science backs up a simple binary definition of sex, the lived experience of people clearly demonstrates that the genetic composition at conception does not define one’s identity. Rather, sex and gender result from the interplay of genetics and environment. Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.

We note that you state that “Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale and trust in the government itself”. We agree with this statement. However, the claim that the definition of sex and the exclusion of gender identity is based on the best available science is false. Our three scientific societies represent over 3500 scientists, many of whom are experts on the variability that is found in sexual expression throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. More information explaining why sex lies along a continuum can be found here, under the Education and Outreach tab. If you wish to speak to one of our scientists, please contact any of the societies listed below.

Carol Boggs, PhD
President
Society for the Study of Evolution
president@evolutionsociety.org

Daniel Bolnick, PhD
President
American Society of Naturalists

Jessica Ware, PhD
President
Society of Systematic Biologists
president@systematicbiologists.org

Oh dear; what a thicket of misguided argumentation we must make our way through here! Let’s take it paragraph by paragraph.

The first paragraph simply denies that there are two sexes, with sex is defined by gamete size. These contentions, they say are contradicted by “extensive scientific evidence”.  But they cite only two papers supporting that, throwing out a number of traits connected with sex but not part of the UBD, a definition that goes at least as far back back as Robert Payne Bigelow in 1894. For a list of gamete-based definitions from different eras, see this paper by Carlos Y. Fuentes (pdf here); the article is in Spanish but should self-translate into English.  To check a more recent book, I just pulled the second edition of Doug Futuyma’s textbook Evolution on my shelf, whose various editions I taught from at Chicago. Sure enough, on p. 389 I find this:

Most sexually reproducing species have distinct male or female sexes, which are defined by a difference in the size of their gametes (ANISOGAMY). In ISOGAMOUS organisms, such as Chlamydomonas and many other algae, the uniting cells are the same size; such species have mating types but not distinct sexes.

I’ve pointed out before that the sex binary applies to all animals (including of course us) and all vascular plants, but not to protists, algae, and some fungi.  But the UBD of course centers on humans, not algae or fungi, for humans are the object of the letter below. (They do note that the trait diversity that produces a sex spectrum applies to all biological species!)

The second paragraph can be addressed by Dawkins’s excerpt above: it mentions a lot of traits associated with biological sex that show variation, but these are not part of the UBD itself.  Let me repeat his words again:

All other ways to define the sexes fall afoul of numerous exceptions. Sex chromosomes come and go through evolutionary time. Profligate gamete-spewing into the sea gives over to paired-off copulation and vice versa. Sex organs grow and shrink and grow again as the aeons go by, or as we jump from phylum to phylum across the animal kingdom. Sometimes one sex exclusively cares for the young, seldom the other, often both, often neither. Harem systems change places with faithful monogamy or rampant promiscuity. Psychological concomitants of sexuality change like the wind. Amid a rainbow of sexual habits, parental practices, and role reversals, the one thing that remains steadfastly constant is anisogamy. One sex produces gametes that are much smaller, and much more numerous, than the other. That is all ye know of sex differences and all ye need to know, as Keats might have only slightly exaggerated if he’d been an evolutionary biologist.

And of course we do see variation in sex organs, chromosomes, behavior, and so on, as well as “the lived experience of people”, which has nothing to do with any biological definition of sex. (What is the “lived experience” of sea urchins, foxes, or gingko trees, that would affect the binary nature of sex in those species?) In humans, the frequency of exceptions to the sex binary lies between 1/5600 individuals and 1/20,000 individuals. As I’ve said, that’s as close to a binary as you can get.

The authors also say this:

Scientific consensus defines sex in humans as a biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up sex.

I have no idea what a “biological construct” is! What is the consensus about the meaning of that term?

The argument proceeds to cite a number of factors associated with sex in some but not all species, but, as Dawkins notes, these traits do not partake in the UBD noted by biologists well before we learned about chromosomes or hormones.

The authors fail to address this important question: if sex is defined by where an organism is positioned along dozens of variable axes, like hormone titer, lived experience, external genitalia, sex chromosomes (many species don’t have these), and other secondary sex traits (there’s a reason they’re called “secondary”!), then how do we determine what sex an individual is? It would have to be some kind of combinatorial, multifactoral analysis that takes all these factors into account. And of course it would result in the delineation of a gazillion sexes within many species—perhaps an infinite number in humans! Is that what the authors really believe.  If they say they are “male,” for example, how do they know that?

And yet I’m sure that all of the authors of this letter, if they work on animals or plants, would use the terms “male” and “female” without defining them.  For example, ASN President Daniel Bolnick, who works on stickleback fish, also sells them from his lab’s “stickleback stock center”. Below are the going prices. Note that they sell ony two sexes of stickleback: male and female. Why aren’t there more? Aren’t there sticklebacks with a lived experience that aren’t either male or female? How does Bolnick define these sexes and why aren’t there more of them?

I see this is running long, so I’ll make just two more points.

First, the spectrum of sex and the denial of the UBD is said not just to apply to humans, but to all species!  From paragraph two of the letter (my bolding):

Beyond the incorrect claim that science backs up a simple binary definition of sex, the lived experience of people clearly demonstrates that the genetic composition at conception does not define one’s identity. Rather, sex and gender result from the interplay of genetics and environment. Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.

What?  All biological species have the kind of diversity that effaces the sex binary, so they must not participate in the UBD, either?  Did the authors realize what they were saying? Is sex a spectrum in elephants, possums, aardvarks, cougars, and so on?

Finally, note that the paper repeatedly emphasizes the authority of their societies, as if they were speaking for all their members. But their members were not polled on this (I’ve asked some), and so the statements must have come from the Presidents themselves or more likely the small board of officers of the societies.  It is a Diktat from on high, and the implied unanimity is false. Some members I’ve talked to in the last few days absolutely disagree with the statement and are even offended that they are implicitly characterized as agreeing that sex is non-binary.  Nor do several people I’ve talked to observed a “scientific consensus” that sex is somehow defined by combining a number of traits in a multifactoral way.

The statement below should and will offend the many members of these societies who do see sex as binary:

However, the claim that the definition of sex and the exclusion of gender identity is based on the best available science is false. Our three scientific societies represent over 3500 scientists, many of whom are experts on the variability that is found in sexual expression throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. More information explaining why sex lies along a continuum can be found here, under the Education and Outreach tab. If you wish to speak to one of our scientists, please contact any of the societies listed below.

Well, I could produce a long list of members of these three societies who do not endorse the letter above. (I was once President of the SSE and don’t endorse it, and I have considerable expertise examining the variability of sex expression in fruit flies. In the comments section below you’ll find another former SSE President who disagrees with their new letter as well.)

In the end, what we see here is three prominent organismal-biology societies having been ideologically captured to the point where they will twist and misrepresent scientific fact to buttress an ideologically-based view that sex is a spectrum.  These societies and their Presidents should be ashamed of themselves.  Scientific truth is not determined by pronouncements of the presidents of scientific societies, however notable these presidents may be.  The UBD is one of the great (and few) generalizations in evolutionary biology, a definition that’s been immensely fruitful in understanding things like sexual selection. It’s a great pity that these societies are trying to scupper the UBD simply to buttress an evanescent form of gender ideology.

As expected, the Musk/Trump administration has aimed its guns at the US university system, deciding that universities that get grants from the federal government’s National Institute of Health will have their “overhead” capped at 15%. Overhead is the money that is used to pay for the unsung things that make scientific research at universities and medical schools possible. It pays for staff that keep the university running — administrators and accountants in business offices, machinists who help build experiments, janitorial staff, and so on — as well as the costs for things like building maintenance and development, laboratory support, electricity and heating, computing clusters, and the like.

I have no doubt that the National Science Foundation, NASA, and other scientific funding agencies will soon follow suit.

As special government employee Elon Musk wrote on X this weekend, “Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for ‘overhead’? What a ripoff!”

The actual number is 38%. Overhead of 60% is measured against the research part of the award, not the total award, and so the calculation is 60%/(100%+60%) = 37.5%, not 60%/100%=60%. This math error is a little worrying, since the entire national budget is under Musk’s personal control. And never mind that a good chunk of that money often comes back to research indirectly, or that “siphon”, a loaded word implying deceit, is inappropriate — the overhead rate for each university isn’t a secret.

Is overhead at some universities too high? A lot of scientific researchers feel that it is. One could reasonably require a significant but gradual reduction of the overhead rate over several years, which would cause limited damage to the nation’s research program. But dropping the rate to 15%, and doing so over a weekend, will simply crush budgets at every major academic research institution in the country, leaving every single one with a significant deficit. Here is one estimate of the impact on some of the United States leading universities; I can’t quickly verify these details myself, but the numbers look to be at the right scale. They are small by Musk standards, but they come to something very roughly like $10000, more or less, per student, per year.

Also, once the overhead rate is too low, having faculty doing scientific research actually costs a university money. Every new grant won by a scientist at the university makes the school’s budget deficit worse. Once that line is crossed, a university may have to limit research… possibly telling some fraction of its professors not to apply for grants and to stop doing research.

It is very sad that Mr. Musk considers the world’s finest medical/scientific research program, many decades in the making and of such enormous value to the nation, to be deserving of this level of disruption. While is difficult to ruin our world-leading medical and scientific research powerhouse overnight, this decision (along with the funding freeze/not-freeze/kinda-freeze from two weeks ago) is a good start. Even if this cut is partially reversed, the consequences on health care and medicine in this country, and on science and engineering more widely, will be significant and long-lasting — because if you were one of the world’s best young medical or scientific researchers, someone who easily could get a job in any country around the globe, would you want to work in the US right now? The threat of irrational chaos that could upend your career at any moment is hardly appealing.

It’s Sunday, and that means John Avise Photograph Day. John continues today with his series on North American butterflies. His IDs and captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them. This is post 29,999

Butterflies in North America, Part 9 

This week continues my multi-part series on butterflies that I’ve photographed in North America.  I’m continuing to go down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name.  With this post, we’ve reached the halfway point of my photographic tour through this continent’s many Lepidopterans.

Juba Skipper (Hesperia juba), topwing:

Juba Skipper, underwing:

Julia Heliconian (Dryas iulia), upperwing:

Leonard’s Skipper (Hesperia leonardus), male:

Leonard’s Skipper, female:

Little Glassywing (Vernia verna), underwing:

Little Wood Satyr (Megisto cymela), underwing:

Long Dash Skippper (Limochores mystic):

Long-tailed Skipper (Urbanus proteus), topwing:

Long-tailed Skipper, underwing:

Lorquin’s Admiral (Limenitis lorquini), topwing:

Lorquin’s Admiral, underwing: