http://theyoungsocrates.com/2014/12/19/d...same-coin/

EXCERPT: [...] Now, let’s go back to my friend and his seemingly discriminatory beliefs. Because if you take a closer look, it appears that discrimination and falsifiability are two sides of the same coin. Why is that? Well, let’s assume that we would pose the hypothesis that ‘All Moroccans are aggressive’ – like my friend seemed to do. This claim is clearly falsifiable: one non-aggressive Moroccan is sufficient to prove the claim wrong. Now, let’s say we’d go to a bar and meet a few Moroccans. And, as my friend expected, these people are indeed aggressive. Thus far, Popper couldn’t blame my friend for holding on to the claim ‘All Moroccans are aggressive’. After all, the claim hasn’t been falsified yet.

The point being: doesn’t my friend apply the same method as is used in the sciences? Making bold conjectures and, based on data, either refute them or not? We don’t seem to have much of a problem with claiming that all ‘Swans are white, until it has been proven wrong. So why would a different claim applying the same ‘scientific’ methods, when applied to members of our own species, suddenly be discriminating? Isn’t it utterly reasonable to hold on to your claims until they’ve proven to be wrong? Or in the case of my friend: to hold on to his ‘discriminatory belief’?

Note that I am not claiming that discrimination is reasonable in itself. What I am claiming is that we cannot accuse people of holding seemingly unreasonable beliefs if they (these people) haven’t been proven wrong in holding this belief....

http://plus.maths.org/content/steady-on-Einstein

EXCERPT: [...] Last year we went along to a conference that brought together cosmologists and philosophers to discuss some of the big questions in cosmology. Physicist Cormac O'Raifeartaigh, from the Waterford Institute of Technology in Ireland, told us about his recent and unexpected discovery of an unpublished paper by Einstein in the digital archive. The paper contained a model of the Universe that was dramatically different from any of the others that Einstein was known to have studied. And although it wasn't the model that Einstein, or the rest of the scientific community, eventually settled on, the discovery is important as it sheds light on how Einstein's thinking about the Universe changed, as he was dealing with some of the big questions in cosmology at the time....

http://plus.maths.org/content/dust-us

EXCERPT: [...] Our Solar System provides typical examples of the different types of planets that are formed at different distances from a star. And the nebula hypothesis also suggests that planet building doesn't occur too close, or too far from a star.

[...] So it might have seemed surprising that the very first planet discovered to orbit around star other than our Sun told a very different story. [...] The star was called 51 Pegasi and the planet, called 51 Pegasi b or 51 Peg for short, takes just four days to orbit around its star. 51 Peg appears to be a gas giant just like our own Jupiter, with about half the mass. Except that our Jupiter orbits the Sun with a period of 4,500 days, about 1000 times slower than 51 Peg. This is because 51 Peg is very, very close to its star, at a distance of just eight million kilometres. This is well inside Mercury's orbit of our own Sun, putting 51 Peg in the hot zone of its solar system where the Nebula hypothesis says it's not possible for planets to form.

This was just the first discovery of such a hot Jupiter-like planet. [...] As well as many examples of hot Neptunes and hot Jupiters, like 51 Peg, we've also discovered planets whose orbits are much further from their stars, say 50 to 100 times further away than planets in our Solar System.

But to some astronomers and mathematicians, this variety of orbital distances was not so surprising. In the 1970s and 80s groups of researchers [...] developed models to explain how planets form. And their models predicted the hot Jupiters we have since discovered....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...121202.htm

RELEASE: Results of three independent studies suggest a woman's body image is strongly linked to her perception of what she thinks men prefer, said lead researcher and social psychologist Andrea Meltzer, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

How women perceive men's preferences influenced each woman's body image independent of her actual body size and weight.

"On average, heterosexual women believe that heterosexual men desire ultra-thin women," said Meltzer, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at SMU. "Consequently, this study suggests that interventions that alter women's perception regarding men's desires for ideal female body sizes may be effective at improving women's body image."

The findings could have significant implications for women's health and well-being, Meltzer said.

Prior research has shown that women satisfied with their body and weight tend to eat healthier, exercise more, and have higher self-esteem. They also tend to avoid unhealthy behaviors, such as excessive dieting and eating disorders, and they suffer less from depression.

In contrast, other research has demonstrated that women unhappy with their body and weight have less sex, less sexual satisfaction, and less marital satisfaction.

"It is possible that women who are led to believe that men prefer women with bodies larger than the models depicted in the media may experience higher levels of self-esteem and lower levels of depression," Meltzer said.

A total of 448 women participated in the three studies, conducted by Meltzer and co-author James K. McNulty, Florida State University.

The authors note that prior research has shown that women who watch TV and read more fashion magazines are less satisfied with their weight and have a poor body image.

Meltzer and McNulty wanted to test whether a woman's feelings about her own weight would be influenced if she viewed images of larger-bodied women when told they were judged attractive by men.

The authors reported their findings in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. The article, "Telling women that men desire women with bodies larger than the thin-ideal improves women's body satisfaction," has been published online ahead of print.

Women's weight satisfaction improved after image manipulation exercise

In all three studies, female participants viewed images of female models with bodies larger than the thin-ideal wearing a variety of clothing, ranging from typical street clothes to bathing suits. In each image, the models' heads were cropped so participants wouldn't be influenced by facial attractiveness. The women in the images were cataloged by participants as ranging in U.S. clothing size from 8 to 10, which is slightly smaller than the average for American women, size 12-14, but larger than model-thin, typically size 2-4.

Each study also included one or more control groups. Some women were shown the images of large-bodied women, but without portraying them as attractive to men. Others were shown images of women who were ultra-thin and told that men preferred them. Still another group was shown both the larger-bodied and ultra-thin women and told that women felt the larger-bodied women were more attractive.

Women in all groups completed a self-report questionnaire designed to measure weight satisfaction.

In all three studies, women had higher levels of satisfaction with their own weight after viewing the images of the larger women who were portrayed as attractive to men, while statistically controlling their actual weight.

"Although the current studies demonstrated that telling women that men prefer women with body sizes larger than the thin-ideal can have immediate positive effects on women's body image, it is unclear how long these effects may last," Meltzer said. "Indeed, all studies assessed women's weight satisfaction immediately after the manipulation. It would likely take repeated exposure to images of larger-bodied women ostensibly desired by men to strongly rival the patterns of reinforcement that are so pervasive in the media."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...121048.htm

RELEASE: Two and a half million years ago, our hominin ancestors in the African savanna crafted rocks into shards that could slice apart a dead gazelle, zebra or other game animal. Over the next 700,000 years, this butchering technology spread throughout the continent and, it turns out, came to be a major evolutionary force, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Liverpool and the University of St. Andrews, both in the UK.

Combining the tools of psychology, evolutionary biology and archaeology, scientists have found compelling evidence for the co-evolution of early Stone Age slaughtering tools and our ability to communicate and teach, shedding new light on the power of human culture to shape evolution.

To be reported Jan. 13 in the journal Nature Communications, the study is the largest to date to look at gene-culture co-evolution in the context of prehistoric Oldowan tools, the oldest-known cutting devices. It suggests communication among our earliest ancestors may be more complex than previously thought, with teaching and perhaps even a primitive proto-language occurring some 1.8 million years ago.

"Our findings suggest that stone tools weren't just a product of human evolution, but actually drove it as well, creating the evolutionary advantage necessary for the development of modern human communication and teaching," said Thomas Morgan, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in psychology at UC Berkeley.

"Our data show this process was ongoing two and a half million years ago, which allows us to consider a very drawn-out and gradual evolution of the modern human capacity for language and suggests simple 'proto-languages' might be older than we previously thought," Morgan added.

Morgan and University of Liverpool archaeologist Natalie Uomini arrived at their conclusions by conducting a series of experiments in teaching contemporary humans the art of "Oldowan stone-knapping," in which butchering "flakes" are created by hammering a hard rock against certain volcanic or glassy rocks, like basalt or flint.

Oldowan stone-knapping dates back to the Lower Paleolithic period in eastern Africa, and remained largely unchanged for 700,000 years until more sophisticated Acheulean hand-axes and cleavers, which marked the next generation of stone tool technology, came on the scene. It was practiced by some of our earliest ancestors, such as Homo habilis and the even older Australopithecus garhi, who walked on two legs, but whose facial features and brain size were closer to those of apes.

In testing five different ways to convey Oldowan stone-knapping skills to more than 180 college students, the researchers found that the demonstration that used spoken communication -- versus imitation, non-verbal presentations or gestures -- yielded the highest volume and quality of flakes in the least amount of time and with the least waste.

To measure the rate of transmission of the ancient butchery technology, and establish whether more complex communication such as language would get the best results, study volunteers were divided into five- or 10-member "learning chains." The head of the chain received a knapping demonstration, the raw materials and five minutes to try their hand at it. That person then showed it to the next person in the chain, who in turn showed the next person, and so on. Their competence picked up significantly with verbal instruction.

"If someone is trying to learn a skill that has lots of subtlety to it, it helps to engage with a teacher and have them correct you," Morgan said. "You learn so much faster when someone is telling you what to do."

As for what the results mean for the Oldowan hominins: "They were probably not talking," Morgan said. "These tools are the only tools they made for 700,000 years. So if people had language, they would have learned faster and developed newer technologies more rapidly."

Without language, one can assume that a hominin version of, say, Steve Jobs would have been hard-pressed to pass on visionary ideas. Still, the seeds of language, teaching and learning were planted due to the demand for Oldowan tools, the study suggests, and at some point hominins got better at communicating, hence the advent of Acheulean hand-axes and cleavers some 1.7 million years ago.

"To sustain Acheulean technology, there must have been some kind of teaching, and maybe even a kind of language, going on, even just a simple proto-language using sounds or gestures for 'yes' or 'no,' or 'here' or 'there,'" Morgan said.

Indeed, the data suggest that when the Oldowan stone-tool industry started, it was most likely not being taught, but communication methods to teach it were developed later.

"At some point they reached a threshold level of communication that allowed Acheulean hand axes to start being taught and spread around successfully and that almost certainly involved some sort of teaching and proto-type language," Morgan said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...131919.htm

RELEASE: Most young children are essentialists: They believe that human and animal characteristics are innate. That kind of reasoning can lead them to think that traits like native language and clothing preference are intrinsic rather than acquired.

But a new study from Concordia University suggests that certain bilingual kids are more likely to understand that it's what one learns, rather than what one is born with, that makes up a person's psychological attributes.

The study, forthcoming in Developmental Science, suggests that bilingualism in the preschool years can alter children's beliefs about the world around them. Contrary to their unilingual peers, many kids who have been exposed to a second language after age three believe that an individual's traits arise from experience.

For the study, psychology professor Krista Byers-Heinlein and her co-author, Concordia undergraduate student Bianca Garcia, tested a total of 48 monolingual, simultaneous bilingual (learned two languages at once) and sequential bilingual (learned one language and then another) five- and six-year-olds.

The kids were told stories about babies born to English parents but adopted by Italians, and about ducks raised by dogs. They were then asked if those children would speak English or Italian when they grew up, and whether the babies born to duck parents would quack or bark. The kids were also quizzed on whether the baby born to duck parents would be feathered or furred.

"We predicted that sequential bilinguals' own experience of learning language would help them understand that human language is actually learned, but that all children would expect other traits such as animal vocalizations and physical characteristics to be innate," says Byers-Heinlein, who is also a member of the Centre for Research in Human Development.

She was surprised by the results. Sequential bilinguals did, in fact, show reduced essentialist beliefs about language -- they knew that a baby raised by Italians would speak Italian. But they were also significantly more likely to believe that an animal's physical traits and vocalizations are learned through experience -- that a duck raised by dogs would bark and run rather than quack and fly.

"Both monolinguals and second language learners showed some errors in their thinking, but each group made different kinds of mistakes. Monolinguals were more likely to think that everything is innate, while bilinguals were more likely to think that everything is learned," says Byers-Heinlein.

"Children's systematic errors are really interesting to psychologists, because they help us understand the process of development. Our results provide a striking demonstration that everyday experience in one domain -- language learning -- can alter children's beliefs about a wide range of domains, reducing children's essentialist biases."

The study has important social implications because adults who hold stronger essentialist beliefs are more likely to endorse stereotypes and prejudiced attitudes.

"Our finding that bilingualism reduces essentialist beliefs raises the possibility that early second language education could be used to promote the acceptance of human social and physical diversity," says Byers-Heinlein.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...090422.htm

RELEASE: For human beings, implementing and having others implement social equity is important, so much so that we are prepared to forego a sure advantage if this derives from an unfair distribution of resources, regardless of whether we ourselves or others are the target of the unfairness. However, even though our behaviour is identical when pursuing fairness for ourselves or for others, a study just published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience and carried out with the collaboration of SISSA in Trieste, shows that the brain circuits at work in the two cases differ, and that one area of the brain in particular is instrumental for the perception of fairness involving oneself as the target.

Would you turn down a "sure" amount of money? You might be surprised by your choice. According to scientific research, humans tend to turn down a sure reward if this derives from an unfair distribution of resources, whether the individuals themselves or others are the target of the unfairness. A study by Claudia Civai, today at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands but at the International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA) of Trieste at the time of the study, demonstrates, however, that despite the behaviour being the same, the brain circuits at work in these two conditions differ depending on whether the subjects themselves or third parties are affected. The study was conducted with the collaboration of Raffaella Rumiati, head of the SISSA Neuroscience and Society Lab (iNSuLa), and Carlo Miniussi of the University of Brescia.

"In previous studies," explains Civai, "we found the same tendency to reject unfair offers regardless of whether the decision involved the subjects themselves or a third party. Brain imaging, however, suggested that the brain was working differently in the two situations."

The task used by Civai and co-workers in their latest and previous studies, technically known as Ultimatum Game, required the subject to accept or reject an offer for a certain amount of money to be split with the person offering it. How the money was to be split was decided by the offeror and it could be shared fairly (half and half) or unfairly (the subject would receive only a small proportion of the original sum). "Although a perfectly rational criterion would be to accept any offer, given that 'anything' is better than nothing, the rate of rejection of unfair offers was very high."

In their new experiments, Civai and co-workers used tDCS, a "transcranial" stimulation technique that allows a given brain area to be temporarily (and safely) deactivated. "The medial prefrontal cortex is an area that previous experiments had identified as crucial in this type of situation. In our study we used tDCS to shut down this area while the subjects were carrying out the task."

When the subjects responded for themselves, the tendency to turn down unfair offers decreased significantly (the subjects were therefore more "rational" and more prepared to accept any sum), whereas this decrease was not seen when the subjects were responding on behalf of a third party.

"We still don't know exactly how this area contributes to the perception of unfairness targeted at oneself. It might help to understand the unfairness or heighten the emotions aroused by unfair treatment, or serve some other function, but we are now convinced that this area plays an important role in self-esteem."

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/...tec-empire

EXCERPT: In May 2008 a team of researchers forming part of the Templo Mayor project of the historic centre of Mexico City, discovered a large offering which had been placed underneath an enormous statue of the goddess Tlaltecuhtli. Underneath Mexico City lie the ruins of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, and at its centre was the Templo Mayor. The project researchers believe that this offering was made during the reign of Ahuizotl, who was ruler of the Aztec empire for sixteen years, from 1486 to 1502, and in that time conquered 45 Mesoamerican territories.

[...] The analysis of Offering 126, said Belem Zúñiga, reveals the richness of this sacrifice dedicated to the Aztec earth goddess. The Templo Mayor examples contain the most prized species of fauna which were not those of local origin that could be used as a source of food or raw material for the manufacture of ornaments.

“On the contrary, they used species that were attributed to ritual qualities, so it is not surprising that they invested time and effort in obtaining molluscs from remote locations such as the Yucatan peninsula and the coasts of Sinaloa and Sonora.” Also it is clear “that the Aztec priests also put a lot of time and effort into the preparation and implementation of oblations that emphasised the diverse origins of the molluscs, aspects that also speak of the military and economic might of the Empire“....