Tag Archives: science

“Define ‘WOMAN’”

“The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.”
Ainsworth, C. Sex redefinedNature518, 288–291 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/518288a

Source: https://twitter.com/aceofdiamonds/status/1634115932313251840?s=46&t=iCKk3zEEX9mB7PrI1A3EDQ

I discovered this enlightening post via @jehannamama on Twitter. I adapted it a bit and started adding references to support the call toward scientific rational views on pluralistic attributes in nature.

Update (11 March 2023): @jehannamama followed up with what is claimed by John Bonazzo  and his online Observer article of March 2017 as the original author: Facebook user Grace Ann (formal name Grace Pokela), a “biology teacher at Arlington High School in Lagrangeville, New York.” Bonazzo’s article offers references. Some are included here below as well.

——

“define woman”:

Person A: 

“In a sexual species, females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y, I’m not a bigot it’s just science.”

Person B:

“First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), [1] you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), [2] you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles),[3] you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms),[4]  you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish), [5] you can have males look and act like females because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), [6]  or you can be one of thousands of sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.) [7] 

Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then. 

You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. [8] You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. [9] You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. [10] You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X’s HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. [11] You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y. [12] You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. [13] And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice versa. [14]

Don’t use science to justify bigotry. The world is way too weird for that biased stuff.”

and then some:

A host of factors figure into whether someone is biological (and cultural) female, male or somewhere in between

Female Hummingbirds Masquerade as Males to Avoid Harassment

Radiolab Presents: Gonads plunges into the mysterious world of human reproduction.

The way we think about biological sex is wrong

Bird-like sex chromosomes of platypus imply recent origin of mammal sex chromosomes

De Aloof, Arnold. (2018). Only two sex forms but multiple gender variants: How to explain? IN: Commun Integr Biol. 2018; 11(1): e1427399. Published online 2018 Jan 31. doi: 10.1080/19420889.2018.1427399

Dumic, M., Karen Lin-Su, et al. (2007, 2008). Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development. IN: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan; 93(1): 182–189. Published online 2007 Nov 13. doi: 10.1210/jc.2007-2155

Montañez, Amanda (2017, Sep 1 ). Beyond XX and XY: The Extraordinary Complexity of Sex Determination. Scientific American.

N. Ortiz, M.E. Ré, First report of pseudohermaphroditism in cephalopodsJournal of Molluscan Studies, Volume 72, Issue 3, August 2006, Pages 321–323, https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eyl011

woman?, man? Plant!
https://www.chicagobotanic.org/blog/plant_science_conservation/amazing_plant_changes_gender_year_year

ScienceVet writing a tweet thread with references about the spectrum of biological sex (and not cultural gender) @ScienceVet2 (or see here below for the same content)

Kesslen, B. (2022). A rapid-onset gender theory. MIT Technology Review, 125(5), 84–87. : The article discusses a study by Lisa Littman about a trans contagion called rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). Topics include the claim of the theory about young people with ROGD, a comment that questioned Littman’s method issued by “PLOS,” a peer-reviewed open-access journal after its publication in August 2018, and one reason for the success of Littman’s paper.


References

[1]

[1.1] https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/xx-xo-system-85/ 

[1.2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X0_sex-determination_system

[1.3] Kaiser, V. B., & Bachtrog, D. (2010). Evolution of sex chromosomes in insects. Annual review of genetics44, 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-102209-163600

[2] 

Stevens L. (1997). Sex chromosomes and sex determining mechanisms in birds. Science progress80 ( Pt 3), 197–216.

[3]

[3.1] Environmental Sex Determination. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9989/

[3.2] How is the gender of some reptiles determined by temperature? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-temperature-sex-determination-reptiles/ 

[3.3] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11669-genes-versus-heat-a-reptile-sex-trigger/ 

[3.4] What causes a sea turtle to be born male or female? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/temperature-dependent.html 

[4]

[4.1] Ramm, S.A. (2017), Exploring the sexual diversity of flatworms: Ecology, evolution, and the molecular biology of reproduction. Mol. Reprod. Dev., 84: 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.22669

[4.2] The sexual battles of flatworms: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-sexual-battles-of-flatworms-barbed-sperm-mating-rings-traumatic-insemination-and-going-down-on-yourself-2

[4.3.] https://www.reed.edu/biology/professors/srenn/pages/teaching/web_2010/AmeliaMegana2/ 

[5]

[5.1] Cardwell, J. R., & Liley, N. R. (1991). Hormonal control of sex and color change in the stoplight parrotfish, Sparisoma viride. General and comparative endocrinology81(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-6480(91)90120-u 

[5.2] https://www.ucdavis.edu/curiosity/news/male-size-advantage-drives-evolution-sex-change-reef-fish 

[5.3] Casas, L., Saborido-Rey, F., Ryu, T. et al. Sex Change in Clownfish: Molecular Insights from Transcriptome Analysis. Sci Rep 6, 35461 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35461 

[6] 

[6.1] Norman, M. D., Finn, J., & Tregenza, T. (1999). Female impersonation as an alternative reproductive strategy in giant cuttlefish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences266(1426), 1347. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0786 

[6.2] Garner, S. R., & Neff, B. D. (2013). Alternative male reproductive tactics drive asymmetrical hybridization between sunfishes (Lepomis spp.). Biology letters9(6), 20130658. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0658 

[7]

[7.1] This Fungus Has More Than 17,000 Sexes: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/this-fungus-has-more-than-17-000-sexes-69930

[7.2] https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1010097  

[8]

[8.1] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/5-alpha-reductase-deficiency/ 

[8.2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539904/ 

[8.3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/5-alpha-reductase-deficiency 

[9]

[9.1] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/ 

[9.2] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/causes/ 

[10]

[10.1] https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Y-Chromosome-facts

[10.2] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/gene/sry/ 

[10.3] Margarit, E., Coll, M. D., Oliva, R., Gómez, D., Soler, A., & Ballesta, F. (2000). SRY gene transferred to the long arm of the X chromosome in a Y-positive XX true hermaphrodite. American journal of medical genetics90(1), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(20000103)90:1<25::aid-ajmg5>3.0.co;2-5 

[11]

[11.1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome  

[11.2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/xx-male-syndrome 

[12]

[12.1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/klinefelters-syndrome/  

[12.2] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/klinefelter-syndrome/

[13]

[13.1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/turner-syndrome/  

[13.2] https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/7831/turner-syndrome  

[14]

[14.1] See [12]

[14.2] Sawalha, A. H., Harley, J. B., & Scofield, R. H. (2009). Autoimmunity and Klinefelter’s syndrome: when men have two X chromosomes. Journal of autoimmunity33(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2009.03.006 

Source of the above text: https://twitter.com/jehannamama/status/1633579258931994632?s=46&t=iCKk3zEEX9mB7PrI1A3EDQ

—————-/

ScienceVet’s thread pasted here for convenience:

ScienceVet writing a tweet thread with references about the spectrum of biological sex (and not cultural gender) @ScienceVet2 :

the thread:

So. Hi new people! Apparently, we’re gonna talk about sex. Like physical sex! Because… there’s some confusion. 

First, sex defined: We’re talking physical sex here, not gender. Body parts, hormones, and genetics (and more). 

Biological sex is a spectrum

/1

Ok, everyone’s super familiar with the XX/XY dichotomy, right? Yeah, what we all learned in like… 4th grade? And that’s great, it gives you a starting point. But it’s… well it’s only the very starting point. 

The IDEA is, XX is girl, XY is boy, right? 

/2

Welllll… that’s not totally right. There are XY people, who have ovaries! And give birth! AH! And XX people who have male bodies and functional sperm! Double AH!

/3

These are usually written off as “abnormalities” and indeed, some cases have medical issues. But many don’t (like the XY woman giving birth). And this is really only the very very tip of the iceberg of “wait, that doesn’t fit into our M or F box unless we make it bigger”

/4

There’s a WHOLE HOST of things that can cause all sorts of “weird” things to happen, ranging from genetic (XXY, XYY, Y, X, XX with translocation, XY with deletion) to hormonal (Androgen Insensitivity, Estradiol failure), and disruptors like dioxins

/5

So, you’re a scientist, and you want to research stuff, right? Which means you have to categorize stuff. Without categories, data is hard! So you take allll these people, including the “weird” ones and you plot them on a graph. Logical! 

/6

You use all the differences there are, different genetics, different responses to hormones, different effectiveness in signalling pathways, different sizes in Aanteroventral periventricular nucleus (AVPV) (yeah that’s a thing) and give everything numbers, add them up. 

/7

You get what’s called a bimodal distribution (mostly, we’ll get to that later) Which looks like this. Those two big peaks are what we call “male” and “female” (even conveniently colored pink for boys and blue for girls – we are using victorian gender colors right?)

/8 

Now, when you’re trying to look at data, we often group stuff. When we do that with a plot like this, it’s called a “histogram.” Basically we’re breaking down a curved line into discrete “bins.” Like this (image stolen from the web). 

/9 

Traditionally, we’ve used REALLY BIG bins for this when talking about sex. Basically you either group everything vaguely near a peak into the peak, or you just pretend there’s nothing else but the biggest peaks. This makes it super easy, because 2 is simple to do data with.

/10

However, as we’ve gotten to know more and more about signaling and brains and hormones and started to pay more attention to the outliers where standard stuff just didn’t seem to work, we discovered that this isn’t a great model to use. 

/11

Now I’m not talking feelings here. I’m talking about data. As you start to look at anything interesting, like say the effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin on animals, you start to realize that a 2 bin model doesn’t predict your results well. 

/12

At first you say, “Well it was just weird.” So you redo it, and it still doesn’t work. So you look at your model and you say, “Well ok, what if the model’s wrong?”

But the model sort of… almost predicts a lot of things, and it worked for years, so…

/13

Some enterprising soul says, “Hey, remember that histogram where we said we’ll just model using the peaks?” And everyone goes, “Uh, yeah?” And they say, “What if we… USED that data?” And everyone groans, because complicated data is hard. 

/14

But someone sits down and does the work, and lo, wow the model starts to work again. Where TCDD was “randomly” turning some boys into girls but then some girls into boys, now you can see there’s a subgroup of what you’d called “female” that responds like the “male”

/15

What’s important here is that you haven’t MISLABELED males as females. These are functional “females” who can do all the usual “female” things like gestate babies. But they respond to this one endocrine disruptor in a “male” way. 

/16

So you add another two categories, call them “Male2” and “Female2” and go on, happy that your model works! You’ve got 4 sexes now, but you don’t really have to tell anyone that, right?

/17

Exceeeept then you remember you’ve got those XY people that gestate babies. So you add “Intersex1” And then the XX people with penes… and ovaries? Ok, “Intersex2” because all these groups respond differently with signalling and brains when you get into the weeds

/18

And the more you look, the more we LEARN, the more we’re able to separate out those fine differences. Depending on what we’re doing, we may not care. If a doc is giving you aspirin, it probably isn’t a big deal. 

/19

But if they’re using a steroid on you? Or treating dioxin poisoning? THAT SHIT COULD BE IMPORTANT. It’s like saying, “the light’s off so the power must not be flowing.” It really matters if the light’s off because the bulb blew. 

/20

If we go back to that histogram plot, we can keep breaking down your biological sex into smaller and smaller differences in brain areas, hormone levels, signalling differences, genetic variances. There’s nothing stopping us from binning EVERY INDIVIDUAL into their own bin.

/21

Technically, this wouldn’t be “infinite sexes” but 7.4 billion sexes is functionally close for our brains. Now, our medicine isn’t advanced enough for THAT level of detail to make any difference. BUT IT MIGHT BE in the future. Individualized medicine!

/22

The thing to remember is that this isn’t “new.” We’re not ‘inventing sexes’ here. Sex has ALWAYS been this curve. We were just using REALLY BIG bins. And now we’re realizing that that’s not representative of biology, it’s inhibiting understanding of medicine and biology

/23

In case anyone’s curious, this isn’t ideology. This is because I had to figure out why my data didn’t match the prediction. Those rats I mentioned? Yeah, my lab. And lab rats are a really pure genetic monoculture, and they STILL don’t fit the two peak model well.

/24

So, since it’s come up, an addendum!

Yes, we looked at other things we could do to make our data fit the existing model, that’s how science works! The ONLY way the data fit was if we let “sex” be more than just those two narrow peaks. 

/25

Models purpose in science is to predict. If they don’t predict correctly, first we check if we’ve measured the data correctly, and repeat the experiment a couple more times. If it still doesn’t fit, we have to look at the model. 

/26-1

Intersex! Because I didn’t specifically mention this. 

“Intersex” is a grouping bin used for a lot of the “middle ground” of the spectrum between the “male” and “female” peaks. Any situation where easily assigning the person to one of those two peaks is challenging. 

/26-2

Intersex! Because I didn’t specifically mention this above.

“Intersex” is a term used to collectively speak of the “middle ground” of biology where people can’t easily be binned into those two big “male” and “female” peaks. It can include a large range of biology

/27

It is worth noting that I never talk about transgender in this thread. Intersex is not the same as transgender. You can be one without the other, or be both. 

/28

For people who think this is just “outliers” 

Current estimates are that the intersex population is at least 2%. We know that’s low because there are a lot of “invisibly intersex” people. That means AT LEAST 150 million people in the world. 

/29I apologize for the failure to use the word “intersex” higher up in the discussion. Many people in the middle ground (including the XY person who can carry a child, for example) use this term. I cannot go back and edit the thread, and apologize for my overly clinical description.Part of the purpose of the thread, which may have failed, was to point out that “intersex” is not a condition, it is not a disease. It’s natural with a bimodal distribution. Science not only supports this, it suggests that ignoring intersex people makes your conclusions wrongFor those curious to learn more about the less clinical “these things exist” side of intersex people, I recommend:

The Intersex Roadshow

Intersex people are supposed to lie low, be hidden with surgical camouflage, and keep shamefully quiet. Not us.

Here is a solid explanation of the embryology of sex organs and how that relates to a sex spectrum and intersex people. 

The Phalloclitoris: Anatomy and Ideology

This is a diagram of our shared heritage–yours and mine. It is a drawing of the genitalia we all start out with in the womb…”

https://intersexroadshow.blogspot.com/2011/01/phalloclitoris-anatomy-and-ideology.html

A human result of the scientific conclusion that sex is a spectrum and intersex people are a perfectly normal result of nature, is that there is no scientific rationale for medically (or culturally) forcing people into those two peaks.

A note here that I am muting the thread, not because I don’t want to respond but because I did not expect it to blow up so much, and I have family and work to take care of. I’ll try to wander back, but can’t guarantee how much it will be.

Another addition, because a couple people have asked about it. 

It’s important to note that there are other people who traditionally haven’t fallen into the “intersex” category, but also don’t fall into the clearly defined peaks either.

For example: XX people with female secondary sex characteristics, and ovaries who won’t menstruate and can’t carry a child without adding external (exogenous) estrogen. People like this often have difficulties finding good endocrinology care.

One more note here: This was meant to be an informational thread, based on my own data/experience as a scientist. I am not the be-all end-all of science and don’t claim to be. There are rational scientists who disagree with me.

Neither, though, do I have time for a full-on scientific debate on Twitter. Maybe we can talk at an Endocrine Society meeting or something. Unfortunately, I do have a life and stuff to do. And Twitter pays no bills.

Many people have asked for reading and papers. This is an opinion piece, which I largely agree with, that references some of the more common human-based scientific papers people use to discuss this issue. Others interpret these same studies differently nature.com/news/sex-redef…

And one more note that “spectrum” does not mean that there aren’t clusters of people. Just like the spectrum of human voice range has more baritones than super-bases.Several people have asked about the physical structures of brains that differ between sex. This work ties in neatly with what I was saying above. There’s many systems and pieces of physiology that each vary, along with the sum-brain/behavior that results. 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

As this is twitter, and I’m not speaking as a representative of an institution or as part of my job, I have not shared proof of my credentials. I don’t want to risk labs/schools I’ve worked with (or family) getting harassed when they didn’t volunteer that information.I know that makes things more difficult for those trying to do their research, but it’s the reality of the platform.

But I can provide some more sources for those actually interested. They include some fairly heavy duty science, but some are open access/free for allSources:
These deal with the fact that the sexually dimorphic brain, similar to most sex differences, does not fall into a hard binary readout – but rather is on a continuum or spectrum with each cell and each brain region comprised of varying degrees of ‘male’ and ‘female’Hines M (2005). Brain Gender. Oxford University Press: Oxford

Joel D, McCarthy MM (2016). Incorporating sex as a biological variable in neuropsychiatric research: where are we now and where should we be?

Neuropsychopharmacology 

Incorporating Sex As a Biological Variable in Neuropsychiatric Research: Where Are We Now and Where Should We Be? – PubMed

“Understanding the multiplicity of ways in which sex can alter the brain is essential to crafting policies and treatments that are beneficial for all human beings. “

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27240659

This paper deals with the complications of epigenetics that can divert the genetic sex and gonadal hormone pathways in subtle ways to produce large trajectory changes. Epigenetics plays a large role in estrogenic apoptosis via DNA methylation.Gregg C, Zhang J, Weissbourd B, Luo S, Schroth GP, Haig D et al (2010). High-resolution analysis of parent-of-origin allelic expression in the mouse brain. Science 329: 643–648

High-resolution analysis of parent-of-origin allelic expression in the mouse brain – PubMed

Genomic imprinting results in preferential expression of the paternal or maternal allele of certain genes. We have performed a genome-wide characterization of imprinting in the mouse embryonic and adu…https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20616232

This one with the interactions between social experience and biology

Springer KW, Mager Stellman J, Jordan-Young RM (2012). Beyond a catalogue of differences: a theoretical frame and good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in human health. Soc Sci Med 74: 1817–1824

Beyond a catalogue of differences: a theoretical frame and good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in human health – PubMed

Extensive medical, public health, and social science research have focused on cataloguing male-female differences in human health.“

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724313@mentions

on the heterogeneity of brains: 

Joel & Sterling 2016. Beyond sex differences: new approaches for thinking about variation in brain structure and function. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Feb 19; 371(1688) 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785909/

——- end of thread

<< Creating Malware: Technology as Alchemy? >>

Engineering —in a naive, idealized sense— is different from science in that it creates (in)tangible artifacts, as imposed & new realities, while answering a need

It does so by claiming a solution to a (perceived) problem that was expressed by some (hopefully socially-supportive) stakeholders. Ideally (& naively), the stakeholders equal all (life), if not a large section, of humanity

Who’s need does ChatGPT answer when it aids to create malware?

Yes, historically the stakeholders of engineering projects were less concerned with social welfare or well-being. At times (too often), an engineered deliverable created (more) problems, besides offering the intended, actual or claimed solution.

What does ChatGPT solve?

Does it create a “solution” for a problem that is not an urgency, not important and not requested? Does its “solution” outweigh its (risky / dangerous) issues sufficiently for it to be let loose into the wild?

Idealized scientific methodology –that is, through a post-positivist lens– claims that scientific experiments can be falsified (by third parties). Is this to any extent enabled in the realm of Machine Learning and LLMs; without some of its creators seen blaming shortcomings on those who engage in falsification (i.e., trying to proverbially “break” the system)? Should such testing not have been engaged into (in dialog with critical third parties), prior to releasing the artifact into the world?

Idealized (positivist) scientific methodology claims to unveil Reality (Yes, that capitalized R-reality that has been and continues to be vehemently debated and that continues to evade capture). The debates aside, do ChatGPT, or LLMs in general, create more gateways to falsity or tools towards falsehood, rather than toward this idealized scientific aim? Is this science, engineering or rather a renaissance of alchemy?

Falsity is not to be confused with (post-positivist) falsification nor with offering interpretations, the latter which Diffusion Models (i.e., text2pic) might be argued to be offering (note: this too is and must remain debatable and debated). However, visualization AI technology did open up yet other serious concerns, such as in the realm of attribution, (data) alienation and property. Does ChatGPT offer applicable synthesis, enriching interpretation, or rather, negative fabrication?

Scientific experiment is preferably conducted in controlled environments (e.g., a lab) before letting its engineered deliverables out into the world. Realtors managing ChatGPT or recent LLMs do not seem to function within the walls of this constructed and contained realm. How come?

Business, state incentives, rat races, and financial investments motivate and do influence science and surely engineering. Though is the “democratization” of output from the field of AI then with “demos” in mind, or rather yet again with ulterior demons in mind?

Is it then too farfetched to wonder whether the (ideological) attitudes surrounding, and the (market-driven) release of, such constructs is as if a ware with hints, undertones, or overtones, of maliciousness? If not too outlandish an analogy, it might be a good idea to not look, in isolation, at the example of a technology alone.

<< Not Condemning the Humane into a Bin of Impracticality >>


There’s a tendency to reassign shared human endeavors into a corner of impracticality, via labels of theory or thing-without-action-nor-teeth: Philosophy (of science & ethics), art(ists),(fore)play, fiction, IPR, consent & anything in-between measurability of 2 handpicked numbers. Action 1: Imagine a world without these. Action 2: Imagine a world only with these.

Some will state that if it can’t be measured it doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t exist in terms of being confined as a quantitative pool (e.g. data set) it can be ignored. Ignoring can be tooled in a number of ways: devalue, or grab to revalue through one’s own lens on marketability.

(re-)digitization, re-categorization, re-patterning of the debased, to create a set for remodeled reality, equals a process that is of “use” in anthropomorphization, and mechanomorphization: a human being is valued as datasets of “its” output, e.g., a mapping of behavior, results of an (artistic or other multimodal) expression, a KPI, a score.

While technology isn’t neutral, the above is neither singularly a technological issue. It is an ideologically systematized issue with complexity and multiple vectors at play (i.e. see above: that what seems of immediate practicality, or that what is of obvious value, is not dismissed).

While the scientific methods & engineering methods shouldn’t be dismissed nor confused, the humans in their loops aren’t always perceiving themselves as engines outputting discrete measurables. Mechanomorphism takes away the “not always” & replaces it with a polarized use vs waste

Could it be that mechanomorphism, reasonably coupled with anthropomorphism, is far more a concern than its coupled partner, which itself is a serious process that should also allow thought, reflection, debate, struggle, negotiation, nuance, duty-of-care, discernment & compassion?

epilogue:

…one could engage in the following over-simplifying, dichotomizing and outrageous exercise: if we were to imagine that our species succeeded in collectively transforming humanity (as how the species perceives its own ontological being) to be one of “we are best defined and relatable through mechanomorphic metaphors, relations and datafying processes,” then any anthropomorphism within technologies (with a unique attention to those associated with the field of “AI”) might be imagined to be(come) easier to be accomplished, since it would simply have to mimic itself: machine copies machine to become machine. Luckily this is absurd as much as Guernica is cubistically surreal.

Packaging the above, one might then reread Robert S. Lynd’s words penned in 1939: “…the responsibility is to keep
everlastingly challenging the present with the question: But what is it that we human beings want, and what things would have to be done, in what ways and in what sequence, in order to change the present so as to achieve it?”

(thank you to Dr. WSA for triggering this further imagination)

Lynd, R. S. (1939). Knowledge For What?. Princeton: Princeton University Press

<< Non-transparency >>


Some of us (I included) request transparency while various attributes & processes are narrated in our lives in a manner to allow comfort in a lack of transparency

As humans some of us are open, & to some extent enabled, to allow both simultaneously. Some can accept adaptation & change, depending on various influencing vectors

Collectively we built entire institutions around lack of transparency. We created these because they allow us a substitute for difficult to understand or difficult to accept results of the process of transparency. Or to control that what “must” be understood by others

Over the hundreds of thousands of years, our species created work-arounds & “pervertedly” took note of (understandably) avoided transparency via narration. Here “pervertedly” means “having altered the direction away from its initial course, meaning or state;” one can think of change, fluidity, dynamics, innovation, transformation or myth

This previous (ie the human, shared & individual histories), & the suggested “perversions,” quickly (in astronomical scales) started to be convoluted with control, & this via any narration which has been collectively embraced. Some of our transparency-hiding narratives are not falsifiable. This creates tensions & harmonies. Request or imposition for corroboration is, at times, systemically opposed, unless the imposer is relentless

We delegate transparency into a blackbox by a different name, while shining bright & sparkling lights upon it, & while collectively dancing around the bonfire lit in its name

Santa is real; the proverbial one & the one living on the North Pole. Arthur C. Clark said it eloquently. I will remain opaque as to which of his 3 laws I am alluding. & yet, Arthur, Santa & I have one thing in common: the joy for aesthetics, poetics & compassion toward the other; at least to bring them moments of uplifting escapism or support

The human choreography is one where we consider the balancing act of when to stimulate transparency & when to obfuscate. If all needs to be simple, clear & straight, we are equally doomed as when we tell blissful stories irrespective of the potentially disastrous or undesirable outcomes to oneself & the relations of oneself with any other; human & non-human

#Transparency & #understandability are interlinked. With these, so are #auditability & #explainability. Eg: by allowing us physical, emotional, intellectual, imaginative, relational & spiritual access to augmenting our senses with a highly powerful microscope or telescope of any engineered types; be these scientific &/or poetic. These nuanced balancing processes can be found in relations with technologies, spouse, students, citizens, communities, markets, policies & larger ecologies. Alternatively these relations can be shattered, brushed under the carpet, crudely abused or unwarranted guarded for the sake of guarding & no longer for the sake of #compassion for life as evolving in complex, paradoxical, diverse relations

“…Paper is a Fraud…”

There are several unreliable suppliers of this medication currently available on the market which should not be trusted. viagra tabs Virility Ex pills can help cialis online uk http://appalachianmagazine.com/2017/page/22/ men with better management of ED symptoms. However for people who appear to have less of an enzyme called as “eNOS”, which is required to be undertaken are, never go for kamagra Gold if you are previously implicated in any treatment that consists of nitrate pills, since these constituents have a tendency to inter-react with the key constituent present in cialis pharmacy online. They maintain that proficiency requires twenty buy cipla tadalafil to thirty trials under real conditions.

The scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries…” (Medawar, 1964) and so is the above decontextualized hook-line, opening this post –as if the fairest of titles– misleading in a not-so-playfully perverted way.

Sir Karl Popper gave us a form and function in scientific methodology via empirical falsification such as presented in his “Conjectures and Refutations”. Has it done us well (us the species, the populous, the Hoi Polloi)? Have we become immune to the absolute, the reductionist linear or to the falsehood of the polarized? Think again; for the many the few have yet to suffice.

Then there is a second scientist, known as the “father of transplantation“: Sir Peter Medawar. Since we are not immune to the traps and trepidation surrounding our personalized versions of oversimplifying falsehoods (including this post and its naïve author), Sir Peter’s medical insights and more so some of his more popular writing might be of use to us in thinking about information gathering and how it might be made to stick or made to be rejected.

Poetic transcoding of concepts and methods from seemingly very different fields of the human endeavor might be of practical use to some of us. A little dab’ll do ya… Though, can methods of less linear and less polarized thinking be as a smoothening ointment against all misinformation? Do all metaphorical potions, at all times, avoid the rejection of that unwanted information-limb? Of course, not. Thinking one has the singular method to iron out falsehood might just perhaps let falsehood creep in through one’s over-polished hubris of believing to be absolutely firewalled against it. Can the real clean guy please stand up?

Nevertheless, we can take methods or metaphorical images as models into our laypersons’ dealings with information; or so one might hold an imaginative and ever-so-slightly childish hopefulness when reading Sir Peter’s 1964 writing entitled “Is the Scientific Paper Fraudulent?”.

As a tidbitty-sidenote: Mr. Medawar was also metaphorically knighted as “the wittiest of all scientific writers” by Dawkins in “The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing.

The scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries. The inductive format of the scientific paper should be discarded. The discussion which in the traditional scientific paper goes last should surely come at the beginning. The scientific facts and scientific acts should follow the discussion, and scientists should not be ashamed to admit, as many of them apparently are ashamed to admit, that hypotheses appear in their minds along uncharted by-ways of thought; that they are imaginative and inspirational in character; that they are indeed adventures of the mind.” (Medawar, 1964)

I especially enjoy the last thread of his words: “[scientists’ ideas / your thoughts / ___________] are imaginative and inspirational in character; that they are indeed adventures of the mind.

Peter Medawar’s Is the Scientific Paper Fraudulent?Dawkins, Richard: “The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing