I spent an enjoyable couple of days last week in the beautiful Wellcome Trust taking part in a data/text mining workshop run by The Content Mine.
The idea behind their project is to develop tools that help scientists and other interested sorts pull data from published articles, potentially on a large scale. If you want to learn more, all their presentations are online, as are the materials from the Wellcome workshop.
The second day was a hackday. For this, my team wanted to build on the ContentMine tools to create something that helps you explore the scientific literature and find connections between papers you might not otherwise have found. We thought it would work something like this: Continue reading “A tool to visualise the scientific literature”
My very first contribution to the collected sum of human knowledge has just been published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. The paper is called: “A Dynamic Framework for the Study of Optimal Birth Intervals Reveals the Importance of Sibling Competition and Mortality Risks” and you can read it online or download a PDF. I’ll talk about the main results in this post.
Way back in 2013, I interviewed Dr Peter Grindrod for UCL’s student magazine, Pi. Dr Grindrod is a planetary scientist who also puts a lot of time into outreach activities. Last year, he curated a photography exhibition at UCL called 10 Miles of Mars — a huge Martian panorama.
We humans love a good story. We even love a bad story (evidence: Hollyoaks is still on television). We all have them; we all tell them. Storytelling is like magic, according to Esquire writer Chris Jones.
If you visit a courtroom you will observe that lawyers apply two styles of criticism: to demolish a case they raise doubts about the strongest arguments that favour it; to discredit a witness, they focus on the weakest part of the testimony. The focus on weaknesses is also normal in political debates. I do not believe it is appropriate in scientific controversies, but I have come to accept as a fact of life that the norms of debate in the social sciences do not prohibit the political style of arguments, especially when large issues are at stake—and the prevalence of bias in human judgment is a larger issue.