Earth and Moon from MESSENGER
Credit: NASA/JHU APL/CIW

Another one of those amazing phoitographs of the earth taken by a spacecraft. This time from Messenger. The earth and the moon as seen from Mercury.

From APOD: 2010 September 1 – Earth and Moon from MESSENGER.

Explanation: What does Earth look like from the planet Mercury? The robotic spacecraft MESSENGER found out as it looked toward the Earth during its closest approach to the Sun about three months ago. The Earth and Moon are visible as the double spot on the lower left of the above image. Now MESSENGER was not at Mercury when it took the above image, but at a location from which the view would be similar. From Mercury, both the Earth and its comparatively large moon will always appear as small circles of reflected sunlight and will never show a crescent phase. MESSENGER has zipped right by Mercury three times since being launched in 2004, and is scheduled to enter orbit around the innermost planet in March of 2011.

Similar articles

This looks like a fascinating lecture. Professor Richard Faull FRSNZ, Director of the Centre for Brain Research at The University of Auckland, is presenting the Royal Society of NZ  Distinguished Speaker lecture series this month.

He is a leading expert on neurodegenerative diseases of the human brain.  His research provided the first evidence the diseased human brain can repair itself by the generation of new brain cells and led to new insights into the treatment of brain disease.

I am a bit late on this. The first lecture is tonight in Dunedin and already booked out. However, here are the details of the series. They are all free and open to the public. Good news for those who can’t make any of the lectures – the Auckland lecture will be recorded by RNZ and broadcast in November:

Wellington

6pm Thursday 2 September
Soundings Theatre (previously listed as Te Marae) Te Papa Museum, Cable Street, Wellington
Refreshments and questions in Expresso Cafe after the lecture

THIS LECTURE IS NOW FULL

Dunedin

6pm Thursday 9 September
Hutton Theatre, Otago Museum, Great King Street, Dunedin

Christchurch

6pm Friday 10 September
Christchurch Art Gallery Auditorium, Worcester Boulevard, Christchurch

THIS LECTURE IS NOW FULL

Hamilton

7.30pm Thursday 30 September
Gallagher Concert Chamber, Academy of Performing Arts, University of Waikato Campus (entry via Gate 2b on Knighton Road), Hamilton

Auckland

6.30pm Wednesday 13 October
Auditorium, Auckland Museum, The Domain, Parnell, Auckland (entry via the Southern Entrance, car parking available in the Domain and also in the Museum underground car park $8)
This lecture will be recorded by Radio New Zealand for broadcast as part of the ‘Talking Heads’ lecture series in November.  Entry to the Auditorium will not be permitted after the start of the lecture. (Auckland lecture only, not all lectures)

For more details go to the RSNZ web page 2010 Distinguished Speaker: The Challenge of the Human Brain

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nicholas Stern to present Robb Lectures (openparachute.wordpress.com)

I currently have  over 220 New Zealand blogs with publicly available statistics. These rely on blogs having sitemeters which allow public access to the stats.

So, here is the monthly ranking of NZ blogs for August 2010. The 7 day rankings are still available any time at NZ blogs average daily visits. It’s worth following a few blogs on the daily visit list. Ranking is a lot more volatile and it’s interesting to watch blogs move up and down and speculate on the reasons.

This monthly ranking has 12 fewer blogs than the 7 day ranking. This is because monthly figures are not available for sites using the Bravenet counter.

The blogs are listed in the table below, together with monthly visits and page view numbers for August, 2010.

While monthly rankings don’t change as frequently as the 7 day rankings the longer time may be more useful because small fluctuations average out.

Meanwhile I am still keen to hear of any other blogs with publicly available sitemeter or visitor stats that I have missed. Contact me if you know of any.

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic

Subscribe to NZ Blog Rankings

Subscribe to NZ blog rankings by Email

Find out how to get Subscription & email updates

Permalink

Related articles by Zemanta

• July ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• June ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• May ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking (openparachute.wordpress.com)

For background to the scientific misconduct charges circulating around Marc D Hauser have a look at A paper by Marc Hauser retracted – Harvard Magazine, A sympathetic take on Marc Hauser and the “scientific misconduct” issue, Hauser misconduct investigation – Full text of Dean’s statement, Marc Hauser replies – acknowledges mistakes and The myth of the noble scientist.

While Hauser’s acknowledgment confirms the eight misconduct charges mentioned by Harvard University’s Dean of the Faculty of Arts Sciences there is concern that the misconduct will taint the rest of Hauser’s work and publications.

It’s probably understandable that full clarity must await the final conclusions of US federal investigative agencies but inevitably there will be speculation. Gerry Altmann, the editor of the journal Cognition, posted a statement on his blog saying that his own review of information provided to him by Harvard has convinced him that fabrication is the most plausible explanation for data in a 2002 Cognition paper. This is the paper that is being retracted. (Two other published papers are being corrected and the other five incidents did not result in publications or were corrected before publication).

In his statement Altmann says:

I am forced to conclude that there was most likely an intention here, using data that appear to have been fabricated, to deceive the field into believing something for which there was in fact no evidence at all. This is, to my mind, the worst form of academic misconduct. However, this is just conjecture; I note that the investigation found no explanation for the discrepancy between what was found on the videotapes and what was reported in the paper. Perhaps, therefore, the data were not fabricated, and there is some hitherto undiscovered or undisclosed explanation. But I do assume that if the investigation had uncovered a more plausible alternative explanation (and I know that the investigation was rigorous to the extreme), it would not have found Hauser guilty of scientific misconduct.

The speculation and concern threatens to taint others in the areas of research Hauser has been connected with. Already some are questioning the reliability of his book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. His planned book, Evilicious: Why We Evolved a Taste for Being Bad, may not sell well, or may not even be published. Pity, as it sounds interesting.

A recommendation from Hauser for Sam Harris’s new book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, appears to have been removed. Now the edge web site for the THE NEW SCIENCE OF MORALITY seminar has deleted the video of Hauser’s contribution. It briefly explains:

EDITOR’S NOTE: Marc Hauser, one of the nine participants at the conference, has withdrawn his contribution.

A revision of the Edge seminar presentations?

On the surface this appears similar to Stalin’s habit of removing his opponents from photographs and there is no indication that Hauser had a choice. It also raises the question of to what extent the work he included in that particular presentation is questionable.

While I can understand why the organisers of this seminar may wish to protect its authority by removing Hauser’s contribution it does indicate the current dilemma for people working in this area. And for lay people like me who are interested in the field.

The sooner the details and extent of Hauser’s misconduct are reliably reported and the final conclusions of US federal investigative agencies made public the better.

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cognition editor says Hauser may have fabricated data (blogs.nature.com)

In September the NZ High Court is to consider a request by local critics of climate science to get NIWA to change its national temperature record. See A desperate plea to be noticed? and When asses go to law for details.

Michael Mann

Their legal action bears strong similarities with that taken by  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli against the University of Virginia. He claims he was doing this to investigate fraud in US climate scientist Michael Mann’s research. The local critics had effectively charged NIWA scientists with misconduct or fraud – the manipulation of NZ temperature data by using adjustments which the critics claim were not required (see New Zealand’s denier-gate).

Cuccinelli’s case was effectively a “fishing expedition” as he had no evidence of fraud. The NZ critics similarly have no evidence of scientific misconduct (which of course hasn’t stopped them claiming this to the world).

A failed witch hunt

So perhaps the local plaintiffs should take some lessons from Cuccinelli’s case which the presiding judge has now set aside (see Judge quashes Cuccinelli subpoena of U-Va. records). He ruled that Cuccinelli had failed to state “reasons to believe” that Mann had committed fraud:

“The Court has read with care those pages and understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann’s work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia.”

Chances are a similar thing is going to happen in New Zealand.

Mann, of course, was pleased with the ruling in his case. He said:

“I’m very pleased that the judge has ruled in our favor. It is a victory not just for me and the university, but for all scientists who live in fear that they may be subject to a politically-motivated witch hunt when their research findings prove inconvenient to powerful vested interests.

“I’m looking forward now to trying to get back full time to the things I really care about: doing research and extending the forefront of our scientific understanding of the science of climate and climate change, teaching and advising students and postdoctoral scholars, and doing the best I can to communicate to the public important scientific findings.”

Climate desk has an audio of an interview with Michael Mann on this ruling.

Thanks to The Fire Judge Sets Aside Virginia Attorney General’s University of Virginia Document Demands

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta

• Judge Blocks Virginia AG’s Climate Witch Hunt (motherjones.com)
• Judge Rules Against Cuccinelli’s Witch Hunt Of Michael Mann (desmogblog.com)
• Court smacks down Cuccinelli (washingtonmonthly.com)
• BREAKING: Cuccinelli’s climate denial case dismissed (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• BREAKING: Cuccinelli’s climate change case dismissed (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Man’s Inhumanity To Mann (tnr.com)

Nicholas Stern

Here’s an opportunity for New Zealanders to hear an international expert talk about the economics of climate change, policies for adaption and mitigation and the issues involved in obtaining a global agreement on these.

The Sir Douglas Robb Lectures 2010 are to be presented by Lord Nicholas Stern next week.

Formerly Chief Economist of the World Bank, Lord Stern is IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government and Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

He is well known for the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change which was produced by a team led by Stern at the UK Treasury, and was released in October 2006.

Stern will be presenting three lectures at Auckland University. These will also be available to audiences at the Victoria University of Wellington via a live video link. And podcasts of the lecture should be available from the Auckland University website afterward.

Some of the ideas to be presented are also contained in his recent book A Blueprint for Safer a Planet.

Details of the lectures are:

8 September – Lecture 1: Managing climate change and promoting development: risks, scale and values.

9 September – Lecture 2: Policies for low-carbon growth and development: Creating a new era of progress and prosperity.

10 September – Lecture 3: Progress towards a global deal.

Lectures start at 7.00pm

Numbers are limited at both venues and you must register here.

In person in Auckland
Fisher & Paykel Appliances Auditorium, Owen G Glenn Building, 12 Grafton Road, Auckland. Evening parking available for $5 in lower levels of the Owen G Glenn Building.

Live video link in Wellington

Pipitea Campus, Victoria University of Wellington Lecture Theatre 1 (RHLT1), Ground floor, Rutherford House, 23 Lambton Quay, Wellington.

For further details go to Events- The University of Auckland.

Similar articles

David Goodstein used this term to describe:

the long-discredited Baconian view of the scientist as disinterested seeker of truth who gathers facts with mind cleansed of prejudices and preconceptions. The ideal scientist, in this view, would be more honest than ordinary mortals, certainly immune to such common human failings as pride or personal ambition. When people find out, as they invariably do, that scientists are not at all like that, they may react with understandable anger or disappointment.

I think it is a useful term. But I don’t agree with Goodstein’s belief that scientists are guilty of promoting it. Certainly not in my experience.

True, there is an ethos of honesty in science which we can be proud of and attempt to adhere to. But we know that scientists are just as human as anyone else. They certainly are as susceptible as others to human failings. And this includes not only pride and personal ambition but also subjectivity, blinkered views, bias and even superstition.

Maybe in the past there was this public picture of the noble scientist but we now live in a more more sensible age. Biographies of scientists are no longer hagiographies. Anyone who has read a recent biography will be aware of how unpleasant Newton was personally. Of Albert Einstein’s treatment of his first wife and their fist child. Of Madame Curies’ affair. No, these heroes of science were real people, not the idealised noble scientist.

Some biographies will even discuss the scientific mistakes of these great scientists. Although, I personally think more should be made of these as they would help us understand the real processes that go on in scientific discovery.

Media beat ups, like the “climategate” concentration on stolen scientist emails, have also revealed how human, and even petty, scientists can be. And the recent news of scientific misconduct by Marc D. Hauser has exposed another, unpleasant, side of human failings (see Hauser misconduct investigation – Full text of Dean’s statement and Marc Hauser replies – acknowledges mistakes).

Human scientists but noble science

But scientists do evoke the image of trust – if you believe advertisements for cleaning products and cosmetics. How often have we seen white lab coats used in such ads. But I think this reputation comes more from the nature of science itself, rather than the scientist. After all, we know from experience that science is capable of delivering. We all depend on this reliability of science in our everyday lives.

This reliability comes from the scientific method – not from the character of individual scientists. Taken in isolation humans rely on pattern recognition. They also rely on brain processes which create our own version of reality. Rather than “seeing is believing” we are often confronted more with “believing is seeing.” It is only human to unconsciously select the information which fits with our preconceived views. To seek confirmation for our own biases.

This may have been a result of our evolution and has probably served us well in our attempts to survive and reproduce. But this approach is not a good basis for truly investigating and understanding reality. They are not a good basis for doing science. And we can certainly see the influence of subjective attitudes, protection of pet ideas, cultural and religious influences, etc., when we look at the history of science.

Modern science has developed methodologies to minimise subjective influences. One is the importance we now place on interaction with reality. On collection of evidence and the testing of any resulting hypotheses and theories against reality. Scientific theories are validated both by testing against reality and by their use in subsequent investigations and technological appliances.

The social nature of science also helps. Ideas and theories must be open to sceptical consideration of peers in the process of collaborative research, funding applications, conference presentations and scientific publications.

Scientific knowledge is progressive – it generally improves with time. This means that mistakes, and scientific frauds, do not remain undiscovered.  Scientific knowledge is always provisional. Ambitious scientists are eager to expose such mistakes. Science really is self-correcting. Irrespective of the human failings of individual scientists.

The noble scientist as a straw man

Scientists themselves have no illusions. After all they experience the human side of their colleagues all the time. I don’t know about the perception of the person in the street but suspect that the image of noble scientist would not be common in these cynical times. Personally, the only time I come across this myth is when it is used as a straw man by those who are critcising science or denying certain scientific findings.

You know. When confronted with scientific features they wish to reject the climate change or evolution denier will sometimes justify their rejection by arguing that scientists are not objective. That scientific fraud is common. The “scientific establishment” controls peer review. Or that science can’t escape from its cultural prejudices. Some theological critics of science fall back on the bias of the so-called “materialistic” or “naturalistic” “paradigm” in science.

They will accuse those they are debating with of having an idealised, fictional concept of the objective, honest scientist. The noble scientist.

A debating ploy, but one that really avoids the issue. And that is probably why it is used. They should be dealing with, and possibly critiquing if they can, the actual scientific evidence and its interpretation. Not the all too human individual scientist.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A sympathetic take on Marc Hauser and the “scientific misconduct” issue (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• Harvard Confirms Scientific Micsonduct by Marc Hauser [Greg Laden's Blog] (scienceblogs.com)
• Marc Hauser’s Fall Shouldn’t Tarnish a Whole Field (bigthink.com)

Sounds like PZ Myers’ health problems are more serious than he first thought. He is currently in hospital for more tests – and from the sounds of it – an operation (see That’s not a heart! It’s a flailing Engine of Destruction!)

Hopefully things will go well. He will get the necessary repairs, a well-deserved rest and return renewed to his blogging. I try to read his blog, Pharyngula, daily and I know others do as well. I enjoy his daily dose of humour and common sense.

PZ Myers answers questions at the Melbourne Convention. Photo: Geoff Cowan

PZ is an excellent communicator and we need more people like PZ to defend science and reason. I am personally amazed at the time and effort he puts into this communication. During the last year he has been on sabbatical leave. While he has been writing a book I know this is disrupted by the traveling and large number of meetings he has been speaking at. In the USA and internationally.

I met him last March at the World Atheist Convention in Melbourne and was impressed at how eager he was to meet everyone. This willingness to make himself so available has resulted in a hectic round of speaking engagements and public appearances in this last year. While this has been great for the communication of science and reason it must have had a toll on his health.

So, hopefully, PZ will take this health alarm as a warning. Recognise that he needs to consider his own needs more and turn down some of the requests for public appearances. Hopefully Myers will return to blogging soon. And I hope to see his book published. I will be satisfied with that and I am sure most of his regular readers will be too.

PZ has appealed to his readers not to “waste your time with prayers.” After all he is getting some real help from medical experts. I wish him well and look forward to his successful recovery. Many of his readers are doing the same. One of these well wishers was Richard Dawkins, who commented: “How noble, how typical of the man and of everything he stands for, to use humour in making such an announcement.”

Which brings me to another of my concerns. Dawkins is also someone who gives his time extremely readily. His life must also be very hectic. I was aware that at the time of the World Atheist convention he was traveling around New Zealand and Australia and speaking to sell out audiences. It amazed me that he spoke in Auckland on the Saturday night and in Melbourne on the Sunday afternoon. Those who went along to hear him certainly appreciate his willingness to make himself so available. But perhaps he should also be taking a lesson from PZs current health problems.

Related articles by Zemanta

• That’s not a heart! It’s a flailing Engine of Destruction! – PZ Myers – Pharyngula (richarddawkins.net)
• PZ is struck down, temporarily [Greg Laden's Blog] (scienceblogs.com)

Local blog Imperator Fish has a nice little satirical comment on the impending legal case being taken against NIWA by New Zealand critics of climate change science (see A desperate plea to be noticed?). If They Win is a fictional news report of legal action taken by the  Climate Science Coalition (CSC) alleging breach of a court order that ruled climate change was not occurring. That is it assumes the CSC will be successful in its current case.

The CSC sued the Crown Research Institute NIWA over weather data issued by the institute, and obtained a ruling by the court last year that NIWA’s data was invalid.

But the CSC are concerned that global temperatures may have risen, in defiance of the court order.

CSC spokesman Terry Dunleavy said the recent atmospheric activity was concerning.

“It may just be an anomaly, but we would certainly be very concerned if temperatures were on the rise, in defiance of the judge’s order.”

Problem is who is responsible? Who do they sue now?

Auckland University Associate Law Professor Nigel de Blath said it was not absolutely clear who or what was behind the recent temperature changes. But if it was God He may have a case to answer.

“On the face of it He appears to have breached the spirit of the court order, if not the actual express language of it.

“I think we all accepted when the ruling came out last year that climate change was at an end. The judge made his views very clear on the subject.”

Mr de Blath said the latest temperature anomalies made a mockery of the entire judicial process.

I nice little story, illustrating the stupidity of thinking one should take legal action in an attempt to change reality.

Here is Marc Hauser’s response to the charge of scientific misconduct (from USA Today Updated: Harvard says Marc Hauser guilty of science misconduct). Hopefully we are seeing an example of science correcting itself.

I am deeply sorry for the problems this case has caused to my students, my colleagues, and my university..

I acknowledge that I made some significant mistakes and I am deeply disappointed that this has led to a retraction and two corrections. I also feel terrible about the concerns regarding the other five cases, which involved either unpublished work or studies in which the record was corrected before submission for publication.

I hope that the scientific community will now wait for the federal investigative agencies to make their final conclusions based on the material that they have available.

I have learned a great deal from this process and have made many changes in my own approach to research and in my lab’s research practices.

Research and teaching are my passion. After taking some time off, I look forward to getting back to my work, mindful of what I have learned in this case. This has been painful for me and those who have been associated with the work.

See also:
Hauser misconduct investigation – Full text of Dean’s statement
Harvard Finds Scientist Guilty of Misconduct

Permalink

Similar articles