Blue Collar Scientist

Over on Skepchick, as I think I’ve mentioned before, I’m particularly fond of articles by writerdd. A short time ago, she unleashed her latest in a series of especially sensible posts about communicating our ideas as evidence-based thinkers.

I personally find debates tedious and grating…. I believe that story telling is much more powerful form of communication, particularly when talking to believers. That’s not to say that evidence and logic should be left to whither on the vine, but data and factual evidence should be incorporated into a personal message that has emotional as well as intellectual punch.

As someone who does science education and outreach primarily through public speaking, I couldn’t agree more. At some of my presentations, people pick debates with me during Q&A, often about subjects peripheral to the topic I’m speaking on. The Big Bang Theory, which is disliked by creationists almost as much as evolution, is a frequent target; evolution is as well, even though I am not a biologist and say so forthrightly to people who engage me on the topic.

Nevertheless I have some stock material that I generally reply with. As writerdd suggests, it does incorporate data and evidence, meant to show why I accept science on an intellectual level.

I’d make a wild guess this is part of what bugs writerdd about debates - they are typically only about intellectual assent. Even if emotional appeals are made (typically of the “Hitler was an atheist” variety), the idea is to bludgeon your opponents into agreement, and stifle their thinking. Such emotional appeals are not meant in a constructive, positive way. They are not uplifting to humans; they are just manipulative debate tactics.

Writerdd is correct that we should be making positive emotional appeals. And my stock material doesn’t stop at data - includes very blatant appeals to emotion. I have a few stock slides about evolution¹, and they show things like transitional fossils, they offer examples of molecular evidence for evolution, they offer examples of how evolutionary theory helps us by dealing with resistant bacteria and preventing birth defects, and so on. But at the end of this material, I talk in blatantly poetic terms about how much better a world we live in as a result of understanding evolution, and I talk about how

When I go hiking², and I take a break on a ridge and I’m looking out over miles and miles of tundra, forest in the distance, birds circling in the air, and moose in the valleys below, I know that I’m related to every living thing that I see. I know that because of evolution. Thanks to evolution I know that my DNA is pretty much the same as the DNA in everything else alive. But it means more than that to me. It isn’t just about what I know, it is about what I feel. It makes me feel connected to my world. It makes me feel like I am a part of something bigger, and something far better than me. I’m just some guy, but I’m part of a bigger system, and everything else in that system shares my blood, my tissue³, and the special molecule that made me. I know that going back through the generations, through millions of generations of parents, my family tree hooks up with the family tree of every butterfly and every flower on the planet. That is very important to me, and incredibly powerful for me.

If I’ve been baited into rolling out this material by a creationist, I’ll end it with:

The alternative to this glorious feeling of connection, this deep understanding that I have a place in this system, and the understanding that it is for this reason we must be good to our neighbors - the alternative that some people would force on me, is that I’m made of dirt.

At which point I show a slide of a strip mine. Granted this latter bit is somewhat argumentative, perhaps in the way that writerdd would see as a debate. But the lead up to it is not. The lead up is a positive expression of what an understanding of evolution does for us spiritually.

It doesn’t matter what your topic is - if you can’t include some positive emotional appeals to make your topic attractive and accessible to people, you have failed at communicating it. Science does not exist in a vacuum. Reality is reality, and a scientific experiment is going to have a certain outcome regardless of what we’d like to be the case, but once we know the truth about the universe - once the scientific results are in - we are then obligated to communicate this in a way that matters to people. And people are emotional folks.

1. And in my “copious free time” I am working on preparing them so that I can post them here for all to use. [↩]
2. Remember, I live in Alaska, where the hiking is absolutely glorious. [↩]
3. I’ll typically grab my forearm at this point by way of passionate illustration [↩]

I thought I’d collect all the online examples I could find of reactions to the recent asteroid names. I’ll try to keep it up to date over the next few days. Please let me know of anything I’ve missed!

First, stuff written by the namesakes:

PZ Myers has posted on Pharyngula.

Michael Stackpole has some remarks here. I’m assuming this is going to get wide play on science fiction and gaming blogs; if you are reading this, would you alert me if you know of something?

Phil has posted on the asteroid bearing his name (Michael Stackpole and Rebecca Watson both drop by to comment) and then followed up about the relative sizes of the various asteroids I named in this batch (Rebecca does some good-natured gloating in the comments, and I clarify a few things as well).

Skepchick has coverage by a.real.girl, with Rebecca in the comments; and Rebecca herself posts to the SGU Blog.

Next, stuff written by others:

Archaeoporn covers all the names in one post!

Greg Laden heard about it on the radio and then followed up PZ’s posting.

The Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums are discussing things here.

I alerted the Skeptic Friends Network where I expect there will be some follow-up discussion.

The JREF Forums have a discussion kicked off by Rebecca.

Stuart Goldman, my old editor at Sky & Telescope, pointed out some T-Shirts of interest.

Phil is already getting international coverage.

John Scalzi waxes jealous.

Robert Sim, the roboticist, covers the story and demands photos.

The Classic BattleTech forums are discussing Stackpole here.

The Farpoint Forums are abuzz about Stackpole as well.

Jim Lippard discusses Stackpole on the Lippard Blog.

And Say We Did discusses the utter coolness of all this.

There’s a discussion going on at Atheism From Mexico (Ateísmo Desde México) which I don’t fully understand, because my Spanish is next to non-existent. I guess that the OP says I’ve named asteroids after four famous skeptics, and the follow-on has something to do with Rebecca’s house being seen in Google Earth? Someone help me out?

Brian Griggs, in a short and to-the-point message, approves of the asteroid Stackpole.

Rebecca makes the front page of Current with the story (permalink here).

The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast for this week leads with the news of Rebeccawatson and the other asteroids.

Tapetenageln reports on Stackpole.

AnakinWeb has a French-language discussion of Stackpole. I know French, and it seems someone reading the discussion thought it might have been an April Fool’s Day joke.

The Daily Camera, a Colorado newspaper, has a story and interview with Phil Plait about the asteroid named for him.

I may have named an asteroid after her, but I’m really not sure what to say about Rebecca Watson. There’s simultaneously too much, and not enough.

She has been an important catalyst in the skeptical movement. Despite skepticism’s generally firm philosophical condemnation of sexism, we have not always done a good job of making women feel welcome, and I think in most places, and at most times, we’ve utterly failed at putting skeptical women in touch with one another and facilitating the discovery of like minds. Leaving aside any reasons to abhor this that spring from our dislike of sexism, there’s still sufficient reason to regret it from the lost tactical and strategic advantage of having some women prominently on our side¹. Over the years, our movement, which I think we can all admit tends to attract a disproportionate number of white, middle aged men, has suffered as a result.

It seemed to me that Rebecca came out of nowhere and started fixing these problems, even before the rest of us had really noticed she was doing it.

So Rebecca first came to my attention and earned my admiration for defining a culture for skeptical women, and bringing them into our movement in such a way that many of them are now leaders. She’s a practitioner of practical, not merely theoretical, feminism. However, if she had not done this, I still would have considered naming an asteroid after her for the simple reason that she appears to have overcome physical laws and can occupy many spaces at the same time. I’m reliably told she has a real job; on top of this, she blogs; in addition to that, she’s on a weekly podcast - a very long weekly podcast, not a ten minute thing; on top of that, she had time to enter a contest to host a radio show at NPR; and guess what, she won, and now she’ll be hosting an NPR show on a regular basis; I hear her as a guest on all kinds of skeptical podcasts all the time; she has solved the global problems of crime and poverty²…. I’m exhausted just telling you about it; if I had to do all the stuff she does so well, I’d probably not last more than a week.

I guess I named an asteroid after Rebecca because I’m extremely impressed with her on a number of different levels.

The naming citation I submitted for Rebecca Watson reads:

Rebecca Watson (b. 1980), once a street juggler and magician, promotes science and rational thinking as publisher of the Skepchick blog, a personality on the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast, and as host of the radio show Curiosity Aroused.

Yeah, Rebecca was once a street juggler. How cool is that?

1. Nothing I say here should be so construed as to minimize the contribution of Eugenie Scott, etc. [↩]
2. Ok, so I’m getting a little carried away…. [↩]

Let’s cut right to the chase:

I am deeply privileged to have named asteroids after PZ Myers of Pharyngula; Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer; Rebecca Watson, founder of Skepchick; and Michael Stackpole, skeptic and science fiction author¹. Quick links to my thoughts on the names:

• PZ Myers
• Phil Plait
• Rebecca Watson
• Michael Stackpole

Please go off to their respective blogs and websites and offer these people the congratulations they richly deserve, and then come back to read the rest of the story.

…

As my handful of readers probably know, I’m an astronomer. I’ve done a bit of research on cataclysmic variable stars, active galactic nuclei, and asteroids. During the course of the asteroid work, my collaborator, Dave Healy, and I have discovered almost 500 asteroids.

Back in 2000 and 2001, I was involved day-to-day in an asteroid observing program in southern Arizona, at an observatory bearing the peculiar name Junk Bond Observatory. Its name is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the way it was financed, but it is a serious place, with robotic 0.4 and 0.8 meter (16 inch and 32 inch) telescopes devoted to research every clear night.

On the night of November 23, 2001, I was sitting in the cold at the 16″ instrument, trying to debug one of the endless problems this telescope had. In the course of a test run of my latest attempt to overcome the problem, I took three images of a previously unknown asteroid. The following night, I followed up on the find, and reported it to the Minor Planet Center, at Harvard. Within a day or two, I was credited with having discovered (yet another) new asteroid.

When first discovered, asteroids get a “provisional designation” - the year followed by a letter-number code. After the asteroid is followed for a while, and an accurate orbit is determined - something that typically takes several years - the asteroid receives a number. Once an asteroid is numbered, it may be named. The naming process takes a few months, so the asteroid names I’m discussing today, which I learned had been approved by the IAU last Friday, were being worked on in December and January, and were formally proposed to the IAU in February.

The asteroid I discovered on November 23, 2000 was originally called 2000 WG11. It was followed for a few orbits, and eventually numbered 165347. Now, it is officially named Philplait - but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

By the following spring, most of the telescope’s problems were under control, either fixed with nuts and bolts, or worked around with clever software techniques. My collaborator, Dave Healy, observed for most of the month of March, including the latter half of the month. He discovered new asteroids in the same way I had, on March 22, 23, and 29. After being tracked for a few years, they were duly given numbers:

• 2001 FB10, discovered on March 22, was numbered 153289. It is now officially known as Rebeccawatson.
• 2001 FP86, discovered the following night on March 23, was numbered 165612. It is now officially known as Stackpole.
• 2001 FC122, discovered on March 29, was numbered 153298. It is now officially known as Paulmyers.

A peculiarity of astronomy is that by long-standing tradition, the person who discovers an asteroid gets to name it. In order to do so, the discoverer must write a short explanation of the proposed name (called a “name citation”), and send it to the International Astronomical Union for approval. The International Astronomical Union is the international authority for celestial nomenclature - what they say goes, and their decisions about naming are respected by astronomers worldwide. These are the same people that demoted Pluto from planet status a few years back, so it is best not to trifle with their power.

(The IAU’s activities in naming celestial objects stand in sharp contrast to the companies selling the opportunity to name a star after a loved one. While some may consider this practice to result in an entertaining and worthwhile novelty, the name has no official standing and will never be heard of or used by astronomers.)

The number of asteroids Dave and I have discovered that are numbered but not named has been growing over the last year or two, and Dave started bugging me to propose some names. Discussions and brainstorming ensued. I take the responsibility of naming an asteroid exceptionally seriously. An asteroid name is forever, as Phil Plait points out:

Think of it: unless some future astronaut mines it, a billion years from now that rock will still be orbiting the Sun. Itʼs almost literally a piece of immortality.

I feel as though I have to give some careful consideration to the matter, and to choose names that are meaningful and important in some way. My longstanding interest in skepticism and in science education had previously resulted in me naming asteroids after Derek Colanduno and Robyn “Swoopy” McCarthy, the hosts of Skepticality, who had pioneered the new media of podcasting and put it to service for skeptical thinking. It seemed logical to continue the practice.

The next few postings to my blog will be about the people I chose to name asteroids after - and their namesake space rocks.

1. I’ve listed them in order of Technorati “authority.” [↩]

If you are interested in science, the skeptical movement, or rational thinking; if you read and enjoy Pharyngula (see also here), the Bad Astronomy Blog, or Skepchick; and if you want to meet other such people, here’s all you have to do:

Go to the coffee shop at Barnes and Noble, tonight, Thursday, March 20, at 7:00 PM.

This meetup is co-sponsored by Zach Miller of the blog When Pigs Fly Returns, Scott Elyard of Coherent Lighthouse, and by yours truly.

If you don’t know any of us, just look for the MacBook with the JREF sticker on it:

The meeting will be informal and social, but we’ve got a couple activities on deck. According to Zach:

Scott is going to show everybody how to draw Euparkeria and I’m going to teach people how pterosaurs folded their wings. Jeff (the BCS) will be giving the keynote speech, and I’ve heard that…whisper it softly…he’s made of cheese.

Zach must have at least some of his tongue in his cheek, for Scott was last seen complaining about his drawing of Euparkeria, and I do not actually have a speech prepared (although it is possible I am made of cheese - it seems we could somehow experimentally verify this at the meetup). I do look forward to a pterosaur demonstration from Zach and some dinosaur art from both Zach and Scott. I will have a couple videos to play regarding Mythbusters. And if I remember, I’ll bring my Atlas of Creation so we can all see the gorgeous pictures of fishing lures that they used in place of living insects.

We will also be discussing the next meetup - we’ll probably be doing this biweekly or monthly - and soliciting opinions on whether we want to pick a regular venue. But mainly, we’re there to have good conversation and a good time.

The upcoming meetup for science buffs and skeptical thinkers - to be held at 7:00 PM, Thursday, March 20, in the cafe at Barnes & Noble on Northern Lights in Anchorage - has received some very high profile publicity, and I’d like to thank everyone for helping out.

PZ Myers has given his blessing on Pharyngula, the 500 pound gorilla octopus of science blogs, although someone pointed out to me that it looks like we have made him sad by not inviting him to attend personally. Actually, if you read carefully, the sadness is because we didn’t invite him and offer to pay his way. Maybe PZ should be told that the beginning of breakup is not an attractive season to visit Alaska. As I write, I’ve had about 150 hits referred from PZ’s blog or its mirrors.

The Bad Astronomer has also blogged about it, which has the effect of getting the announcement into the USA Today Alaska-edition feed, which I know a lot of local people read. The BA has driven about 75 hits to our announcement, combining the traffic from his blog and the USA Today feed. Also, I have finally figured out what a “BA-Blogee” is, and it is the same thing as what I styled a Bad Astronomy Buddy. I’m not sure why I wasn’t able to grok this prior to now, but I assure you, from here on out I will refer to BA fans (including myself) with the officially sanctioned nomenclature. (Did you actually get that through the IAU General Assembly, Phil?)

The Shepchick blog has done an over-the-top job of promoting us, too. Whereas I expected Rebecca to add our event to the Skepchick calendar and move on to more interesting things, what she actually did was add us to the calendar and then write a great post with a pertinent and eye-catching headline. When I saw it I got all excited - “cool,” I thought, “I get to go to a GEEK MEETUP!” - then I realized I was the guy organizing it and began to doubt my qualifications as a rational thinker. And so we’ve had about 60 hits from the Skepchicks blog.

So, that’s about 285 unique hits from these three bloggers, and Anchorage folks who didn’t know about us before learned about us from all three of these sites. So thanks a bunch, guys! Now I’m wondering what to expect. A few people have e-mailed me or commented that they are going to attend, or try to; but I wonder what percentage of the traffic that isn’t resulting in e-mails or blog comments are (a) Alaskans, who (b) are planning to attend? If it is even 10%, we’re going to have a lot more people than I anticipated. Which would be really cool. I expect the promotion conducted at my talk on exoplanets will get a few people out to join us as well.

Anyway, I’m really looking forward to this, so don’t be surprised to see me promote it a couple more times over the next week.

Writerdd over on Skepchick, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite bloggers, has some remarks about non-fundamentalist religion:

In comments on another post a few weeks ago, I questioned the idea of criticizing Christians for “cherry picking the Bible” — that is, ignoring the parts they find abhorrent and clinging to the parts they find inspirational…. Ignoring parts of the Bible or Koran should not be ridiculed. It is a good thing that leads away from fanatical violence. We should be encouraging this type of behavior.

I agree, utterly and completely.

The fact is, sensible people will read parts of the Bible and correctly discern that it isn’t a science textbook. In a recent TV interview on the evolution wars, I said that a person reading the first four chapters of Genesis as a story that tells us about human nature - our curiosity, our response to authority, etc - has done a sensible thing. Not as sensible, perhaps, as studying psychology, but they’ve at least read the text and learned from it the things that I think the author was trying to teach. Somewhat more discerning people might read the same text and recognize that it is also a slap in the face to prevailing political and religious institutions in contemporary Babylon - and if so, they’ve done an excellent job of interpreting the text.

Readers who decide those chapters are an anatomy lesson and come to the conclusion that men have fewer ribs than women¹ have made a fundamental error about the scope of the text. As have those who believe that it is a textbook for science and/or history. If someone reads the first four chapters of Genesis and still thinks that men and women have the same number of ribs, does it make them an infidel,² or somehow not-really-Christian³?

Ummm, no, it makes them more sensible than their peers.

In doing the science/skepticism educational activities I’m neck-deep in, I have to communicate with forthrightly religious people all the time. The sensible ones, who lack fundamentalist impulses, have no difficulty grappling with the reality that is demonstrated by experiment. And lest we body-check them for nevertheless believing in god, let’s keep in mind that all but the superheroes among us believe something that isn’t true⁴.

Dialogues often develop between fundamentalists and less strident religionists in the class discussions that I lead, and my conclusion from these experiences is that I want more of the latter in my world. They are simply much less prone - no, let’s say, not prone at all - to condemning me to a violent end for “believing in” the Big Bang Theory, and shutting out everything I have to say simply because my beliefs aren’t the same as theirs. What’s disturbing about that is my “beliefs” are never aired - they just assume the person they are dealing with is a minion of Satan. As writerdd notes, there is a big gulf in social adjustment between these two populations.

And that is why I distinguish between religious extremists, and everyone else. (Well, that, and because the term marginalizes extremists.)

1. This is a belief I have actually encountered in the wild. [↩]
2. From the perspective of fundamentalist Christians. [↩]
3. From the perspective of an atheist or adherent to another religion. [↩]
4. That’s actually the most humbling thing about doing science - finding out that your view of reality is seriously messed up, over and over again. [↩]