< Back to Issue 11 Through the Looking-Glass by Edmond Sim 27 October 2026 Illustrated by Eric Wang Edited by Andrew Irvin "In another moment Alice was through the glass, and had jumped lightly down into the Looking-glass room." (1) Most of us, as children, have pressed a hand against a mirror and met another hand pressing back, one that is ours but not quite ours, with its left on our right. Consider how you know your own face. You have never seen it directly. You know it from mirrors, which reverse it, and from photographs, which flatten it. Remove the glass and you do not see yourself more truly. You do not see yourself at all. The world is no different. It reaches us through eyes, nerves, and a mind that shapes it before we see it. If we strip the shaping away, we would not see the world more clearly. Rather - we would not see at all. Alice’s experience in the Looking-Glass world, with its inverted reality and reversed logic, show that there exists a reality outside our perceived reflection. So the question we must ask is how much of what we see belongs to the world, and how much belongs to the glass. Philosophers have argued over it for millenia, and in the last hundred years physics has opened up this question once again. A Brewtiful Form David Brewster, a Scottish physicist working just after the turn of the 19th century, was investigating how light waves could be restricted to one plane (polarisation) by reflecting light back and forth between inclined reflective plates. In this process, while observing a candle, he noted down the “multiplication of the sectors formed by the extremities of the plates of glass” (2). Impressed by the beauty from the symmetry of the image – presumably a distraction from dark and miserable 19th century Scotland – he had a candle moment and his eyes lit up with pound sterling signs. Brewster saw the commercial side quickly. Seeing its potential in "all the ornamental arts" for its capacity to produce "an infinite variety of beautiful figures and patterns" (2), he took the setup, fixed it in a tube with pieces of coloured glass at the end and proudly displayed it at the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He built the name from three Greek words: καλός kalos (beautiful), εἶδος eidos (form) and σκοπέω skopeō (to look at) (2). A kaleidoscope was thus designed to be an instrument for looking at beautiful forms. Unfortunately, the patent did him little good. Before the licensed maker had stock ready, one of the instruments was shown to London opticians to take orders, and the opticians copied it. An estimated two hundred thousand kaleidoscopes sold in London and Paris in three months, and Brewster reckoned that at most a thousand of them had made them with his patent specification (2). Alas, he should’ve consulted an intellectual property lawyer. Its design is simple. At the far end of the tube sits the object cell, where loose fragments of coloured glass are held between a clear pane and a translucent one that diffuses the incoming light. Mirrors run the length of the tube, meeting along one edge. At the near end is the aperture. For the reflected copies of the cell to close up without a seam, the mirrors must meet at 180°/ n for some whole number n . At 45°, the eye sees eight sectors, and at 30°, it sees twelve (2). Brewster tried (and wrote about!) many possible configurations of his product. His patent favoured angles of 18°, 20° and 22½° (3), while later treatises specified 45°, 36° and 30° (2). Consider what the viewer does and does not see. While using the device, the glass fragments are never seen in the location where they actually lie; rather only their multiplied reflections reach the eye. The mirrors are never seen at all. They appear nowhere in the image, yet they fix the perceived shape and pattern. An argument I propose is that human perception operates like Brewster’s kaleidoscope: what we observe is not a raw, unmediated external world, but a structured projection produced by the interaction between external content (the inflow of ambient light) and internal architecture (glass beads and mirrors). Extending this analogy, the loose, coloured fragments of glass at the far end of the cylinder represent mind-independent matter. We never observe their unreflected physical form directly; however we observe their effects. The mirrors and lenses that produce the symmetrical patterns can be thought of as the inner workings of our neurology that permit us to process and perceive external stimuli. While Brewster's kaleidoscope postdates both Locke and Kant, I believe my proposed framework fits their theories of human perception well. Locke is concerned with the fragments: which qualities belong to objects themselves, and which exist only in the perceiver. Kant is concerned with the mirrors: what the mind contributes to every experience before any object appears in it. Neither theory was built solely from deductive philosophy alone, as each was modelled on the physics of its time. Locke's primary qualities (extension, shape, motion, number) are variables of a mechanics problem, drawn from the corpuscular philosophy of Boyle and Newton. Kant's forms of intuition are Newton's space and time, Euclidean, absolute and independent of each other, except drawn from the world into the mind. Finally, the relationship between physics and philosophy becomes strained when one of them is proven incorrect. We learnt that physical space could be curved, space and time merged into one, and particles no longer had a definite position and momentum at once. If Locke and Kant built on classical physics, to what extent can the framework of Brewster’s kaleidoscope persist today? Separating the chaff from the grain Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) contains one of philosophy's more pragmatic thought experiments: Take a grain of wheat, divide it into two parts; each part has still solidity, extension, figure, and mobility: divide it again, and it retains still the same qualities; and so divide it on, till the parts become insensible ; they must retain still each of them all those qualities (4, emphasis added). Locke’s mill is an instrument of division. Grinding changes a grain's size and shape, but the main point is that the mill cannot take away the fact that every piece has some size and some shape. Properties that survive every division must belong to matter itself. Locke's list of descriptors of this nature is “solidity, extension, figure, motion and number”. He calls them primary qualities, that are "utterly inseparable from the body, in what state soever it be" (4, emphasis added). Colour, taste, smell, warmth, and sound are not of the same vein. Locke uses the example of granite. If you turn off the light, its natural reddish-brown colour can’t be examined, and hence does not exist (4)! For these descriptors, he labels them as secondary qualities. Locke did not arrive at his list by introspection, rather deriving his theory of knowledge from the physics of the day. In the preface to his Essay he describes natural philosophers (a term that we would now call a physicist) as "master-builders," where he name-drops Robert Boyle and "the incomparable Mr. Newton," thus concluding that it is "ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge" (4). On this account, one can see that it is the philosopher's job to provide credence to the physicists’ theories. The physics that Locke was “clearing the ground” for was Boyle's. Boyle's Origin of Forms and Qualities (1666) set out the corpuscular philosophy, that all matter consists of tiny solid bodies, each with a size, a shape, and a state of motion, whereby every other property of an object comes from how its corpuscles are arranged within the body (5). This was not a new philosophy, but rather the rehashing of a truly ancient belief. In a rather terse remark that perhaps could have found its way into The Flintstones, Democritus put it more bluntly in the fifth century BC; "By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention colour; but in reality atoms and void" (6). However, what the seventeenth century added was the formalisation of mathematics. Galileo wrote that the book of nature "is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures" (7). Descartes gave geometry an algebraic form, and Newton's Principia (1687) could predict where a body would be on the Day of Judgement from its mass, position and velocity (8). F = ma does not predict a body's smell. This is why Locke's list of primary qualities looks the way that it does. Size, shape, number and motion are the quantities that can be written into equations. Primary qualities are the variables of seventeenth-century mechanics. Galileo drew a hard conclusion about Locke’s secondary qualities. Tastes, odours and colours, he wrote, "reside only in the consciousness", so that "if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be wiped away and annihilated" (7). Locke’s argument, however, was a little more nuanced. Rather than being a wishy-washy subjective experience unique to the observer, Locke writes that secondary qualities are " powers to produce various sensations in us by their primary qualities" (4, emphasis added). The redness of a rose is a real feature of itself; an arrangement of its particles that, given light and a human eye, produces the sensation of red. The sensation needs an observer. Its power does not. A power of this kind is a relation. It is defined not by what the rose is on its own, but by what it does to light and to eyes. Locke ranked such relational properties second, below the intrinsic properties a body has in isolation. Returning back to the kaleidoscope, the fragments at the end of the tube have a definite number and definite edges whether anyone is at the aperture. Those are its primary qualities. The colours that wash across our view are secondary; what the fragments' structure does to the light passing through them, and the effect that it has on the eye at the other end. The mirrors of the mind Kant thought Locke had stopped halfway. If colour belongs to how a thing appears rather than to the thing itself, why should shape and size be any different? In the Prolegomena (1783) he describes his completion of Locke’s theory: If I go farther, and for weighty reasons rank as mere appearances the remaining qualities of bodies also, which are called primary, such as extension, place, and in general space … no one in the least can adduce the reason of its being inadmissible (9). Kant’s main thesis is rather straightforward – everything we know about the fragments reaches us through the mirrors. We have never seen a fragment without them, so we have no way to verify which features belong to the fragment and which the reflection put there. Kant calls the thing as it is in itself ( ding an sich ), beyond any possible human experience as noumenon , and the thing as it appears to us as phenomenon . Locke's primary and secondary qualities are both forms of phenomena. Since the fragments in themselves cannot be known, Kant went to the piece of the toy that we may study from the inside: the mirrors. Kant claims that space and time are not features of the world we observe. Rather they exist as forms of our inherent intuition, the fixed structure through which anything must pass in order to be experienced at all. The existence and immutability of space and time are a priori ; not learned from empirical evidence, but rather an inherent logical deduction given to us at birth. We never perceive space itself, just as the viewer never sees the mirrors. Yet every experience we have is due to space. This is true for time. Kant’s illustrious success as a philosopher often overshadows his independent research in theoretical physics. His Universal Natural History (1755) used Newton's gravitation to explain how solar systems form (11). Similarly, we see Kant’s “plagiarism” of Newton’s theory of space and time, albeit placing his theory in a newfound context. In Newton’s Principia , "absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable", and "absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external" (8). To the human mind, space and time are uniform and universal, and are able to be intuited from our human instinct. Consequently, space must be Euclidean, as our spatial intuition dictates "that the straight line between two points is the shortest" (10). Similarly, there must be a single time shared by every observer: "different times are only parts of one and the same time" (10). The question one must ask is: is our intuition true? Melted glass, bent mirrors Locke stopped the mill when the grain became “insensible,” and deduced the primary qualities from there. However, physics kept on grinding. Consider the following listed primary qualities: Bulk: Newton defined mass as a quantity of matter, something each corpuscle carries as its own. Upon grinding the wheat to its amylose and amylopectin starch chains, the molecules to atoms, the atoms to nuclei, and the nuclei to its protons and neutrons, we see that proton contains three quarks, but the quarks' own masses account for about one per cent of the proton's mass (12). The mass deficit is the energy of the strong nuclear force that binds the protons and neutrons together (13). Most of a proton's bulk belongs to none of its parts, rather the mass stems from relational energy from particles being in close proximity. Extension and figure: The electron has no measured size or shape. Experiments have proved an upper bound of 10 -18 metres, and the Standard Model treats it as a point particle (14). The "shape" of an atom is a variable probability distribution, with no fixed boundary that divides inside and outside. Motion : In quantum mechanics, a particle cannot have an exact position and an exact momentum at the same time, and consequently motion cannot be found out without losing where it is or where it is going (15). Some quantum interpretations, such as Bohm's pilot wave theory, have tried to restore definite positions by having a guiding wave “push” the actual configuration of particles, however this causes each particle's motion to depend on the positions of all the others (16). Locke's self-contained corpuscle does not agree with this. Solidity: Particles may experience quantum tunnelling effects, as the wave function representation of its position may result in a probability of finding the particle in a classically forbidden region. In practice, this is impossible due to the exponentially decaying probability of events happening for one, albeit an Avogadro’s number of particles. However, this still disproves Locke’s theory on the solidity of corpuscles. Number: Surprisingly, not even the comfort of invariant counting is spared. In quantum field theory, particles are excitations of underlying fields, and how many excitations are present can depend on the reference frame of the observer. An observer accelerating through what an inertial observer calls empty space may detect many particles (17). Every primary quality on Locke's list, probed to a microscopic scale, stops being an intrinsic property of a self-contained body and becomes a fact about relations; between quarks, between electrons, between a system and its measurement device. The fragments at the end of the tube, therefore, do not have a definite number or a fixed shape whether anyone is at the aperture. The mirrors are not spared from the physics revolution. In 1905, Einstein showed simultaneity is not universal; two observers in relative motion can disagree about whether two distant events happened at the same time, and neither is incorrect (18). In 1915, his general theory went further. The geometry of space and time is not fixed in advance but shaped by the matter and energy within it, and near mass geometry is no longer Euclidean (19). In Kant's kaleidoscope, the mirrors were fixed at one angle in every tube. Relativity dictates that the angle depends on how fast the tube is moving and the direction it is held. To make matters worse, the angle is not set by the viewer at all. The presence of external mass and energy determine the geometry, so the contents of the universe distort and bend the mirrors depending on where it is used. A Kantian can reply that ordinary experience still looks Euclidean, which indeed is true; as deviations locally are far too small to see. However, recall that Kant did not claim that space looks Euclidean. He claimed we know, a priori , and therefore with certainty, that if our intuition dictates it to be so, it is so. Mathematicians (Lorentz, Poincaré and the like) had already shown in the nineteenth century that non-Euclidean geometries are perfectly consistent and functional (20). Einstein showed that solutions to his field equations demonstrate that the space we occupy is non-Euclidean (19). Clearly, there is absolutely no hope for our kaleidoscope. Its fragments have melted and its mirrors have been bent, so our framework is futile, an antique relic that should best be left in the past? Rebuilding the kaleidoscope Let us first consider the glass fragments first. The history of physics is a graveyard of discarded things: caloric, phlogiston, the luminiferous aether. If our best theories have repeatedly been wrong about what exists, then who in their right mind would trust our newfangled current ones? Worrall answers that despite the incorrect precise detail of scientific theory, we still have the same mathematical structure persisting across time (21). He uses the example of light, where in 1820s Fresnel described light as a vibration in an elastic aether and derived equations for how much light a glass surface reflects and transmits for each polarisation. Maxwell's theory later replaced the aether with electric and magnetic fields. Whilst Fresnel was incorrect about what medium light vibrated in, his equations carried over unchanged. Now looking back at Locke's qualities, we see that he ranked intrinsic properties of corpuscles over relational powers. Modern physics found that at its core, particles do not possess intrinsic bulk and figure, but relations; group symmetries, conservation laws, the ways systems act on one another. Since Eugene Wigner's work in 1939, physicists have classified elementary particles not by size or shape but rather how they behave under the symmetries of spacetime, which is what fixes their mass and spin (23). Others argue that fundamental properties are powers in Locke's sense: that there is nothing more inherent to an electron's charge than rather what its charge allows it to do (24). So, a neo-Lockean keeps his method, but rather inverts Locke’s original order. Secondary, then primary. Now for the mirrors. Hans Reichenbach, writing in 1920 when general relativity was merely five years old, argued that Kant had combined two meanings of a priori (25). Its first meaning is that an a priori deduction is "necessarily true" or "true for all times." Evidently, an a priori belief that space is Euclidean has been proven necessarily false by Einstein’s relativity. However, its secondary meaning, and the one that Reichenbach claims can save Kant’s theory is "constituting the concept of object" (25). An a priori deduction must come after a framework before any test of its validity can mean anything. Michael Friedman develops this into what he calls the relativised a priori (26). Newton's mechanics presupposed Euclidean geometry and his calculus; Einstein's presupposed Riemannian geometry and the equivalence principle (gravitational mass equals inertial mass). Neither framework was learned from the experiments it made possible, since without it those experiments would have meant nothing. Yet each could be replaced when a scientific revolution replaced the whole system. Inside the tube So how much of what we see belongs to the world, and how much to the glass? There is no fixed share, because there is no barrier between them. Every observation is a physical interaction. Demanding to know what reality looks like without an observer is a logical fallacy; if you see a kaleidoscope from the outside without peering in, you wouldn’t know the pattern that emerges. What we can and should trust is invariance , the structural patterns that never change, no matter which angle you look from. Physics looks past the shifting reference frames of observers to find the conservation laws, mathematical symmetries, and field equations that hold firm across all of them. Yet we only uncover these invariants because we can each observe reality from our own kaleidoscope, sharing, testing, and validating what we see to map the relationships across the observable universe, both within and without. Nagel called the old ideal of objectivity "the view from nowhere" (27). Physics has swapped it for something attainable: the view that holds from everywhere. References Carroll L. Through the looking-glass, and what Alice found there. London: Macmillan; 1871. Brewster D. A Treatise on the Kaleidoscope . Archibald Constable & Co; 1819. Accessed September 27, 2026. https://archive.org/details/b29295440 Brewster D, inventor. A new optical instrument called "The Kaleidoscope" for exhibiting and creating beautiful forms and patterns of great use in all the ornamental arts. British patent 4136. July 10, 1817. Locke J. An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding . Vol 1. Project Gutenberg; 2004. Accessed September 27, 2026. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10615 Boyle R. The Origine of Formes and Qualities (According to the Corpuscular Philosophy) . Ric. Davis; 1666. Taylor CCW. The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus. Fragments . University of Toronto Press; 1999. Galilei G. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo . Drake S, trans. Doubleday; 1957. Newton I. Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World . Motte A, trans; Cajori F, rev. University of California Press; 1934. Kant I. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics . Carus P, trans. Open Court; 1902. Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason . Guyer P, Wood AW, trans. Cambridge University Press; 1998. Kant I. Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels . Johann Friederich Petersen; 1755. Navas S, Amsler C, Gutsche T, et al; Particle Data Group. Review of particle physics. Phys Rev D . 2024;110(3):030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001 Dürr S, Fodor Z, Frison J, et al. Ab initio determination of light hadron masses. Science . 2008;322(5905):1224-1227. doi:10.1126/science.1163233 Gabrielse G, Hanneke D. Precision pins down the electron's magnetism. CERN Courier . October 4, 2006. Accessed September 27, 2026. https://cerncourier.com/a/precision-pins-down-the-electrons-magnetism/ Heisenberg W. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Z Phys . 1927;43(3-4):172-198. doi:10.1007/BF01397280 Bohm D. A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of "hidden" variables. I. Phys Rev . 1952;85(2):166-179. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166 Unruh WG. Notes on black-hole evaporation. Phys Rev D . 1976;14(4):870-892. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.870 Einstein A. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Ann Phys . 1905;322(10):891-921. doi:10.1002/andp.19053221004 Einstein A. Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften . 1915:844-847. Beltrami E. Saggio di interpretazione della geometria non-euclidea. Giornale di Matematiche . 1868;6:284-312. Worrall J. Structural realism: the best of both worlds? Dialectica . 1989;43(1-2):99-124. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00933.x Poincaré H. The Foundations of Science: Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science, Science and Method . Halsted GB, trans. The Science Press; 1913. Wigner E. On unitary representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group. Ann Math . 1939;40(1):149-204. doi:10.2307/1968551 Bird A. Nature's Metaphysics: Laws and Properties . Clarendon Press; 2007. Reichenbach H. The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge . Reichenbach M, trans. University of California Press; 1965. Friedman M. Dynamics of Reason . CSLI Publications; 2001. Nagel T. The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986. < Previous Back to Issue 11 Next >

< Back to Issue 2 Man-Made Science: On the Origins of the Gender Gap Scientific practice remains doused in centuries of unreasoned and illogical discrimination against women. But what is the best way to unravel the complexities of such an intricate web of injustice, intellectual theft and suffering? by Mia Horsfall 10 December 2021 Edited by Natalie Cierpisz & Ruby Dempsey Illustrated by Janna Dingle Alice Ball was born in Seattle on July 24, 1892. She would grow up in Washington, achieving top marks in school before studying Chemistry at the University of Washington. She would have her article "Benzoylations in Ether Solution" published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. Ball then pursued a Masters of Chemistry at the University of Hawaii, where she would study chaulmoogra oil and its treatment of leprosy. Ball revolutionised the application of the oil, discovering its water solubility in its ester ethyl form, enabling it to be dissolved within the bloodstream. At the time, this revolutionary treatment was the best available for leprosy, having resoundingly positive impacts on more than 8000 people. Ball would die at the age of 24, and Arthur L. Dean, the future President of the University of Hawaii, would publish her findings, the treatment coming to be known as the “Dean Method”. It was not until 2000 that Alice Ball was formally recognised as having pioneered the method. Ball is not a rarity in the history of recognition of women in science. Women have been rendered oblique in the fabric of scientific contribution, pushed into corners by their male counterparts. You are not a scientist, they say. You are a worker, a contributor to a broader scientific framework that lies beyond the tips of your fingers. Your worth does not extend past your utility, your body and brain useful insofar as we dictate. Make no mistake, your work is not yours to own. These women, these scientists, these thinkers are perpetually framed in this lens, their stories framed in the contexts they were stolen from. Throughout history, women have been slotted in around men, in the world, in language, crammed in, letting femininity compress and fold over herself. The notion of feminist and masculinist lenses of science is not inherently divisive despite the dichotomised nature of their terminology. Rather, examining the feminist lenses of science contributes to a richer understanding of the epistemic value of science itself. The dangers of not examining said lenses are not only very real, they are tragic. Historically, women have occupied lesser paid, more arduous, and more dangerous positions within STEM industries, the most famous instance being the large number of women who contracted radiation poisoning from painting watch-faces with self-luminous paint. However, there is no unified definition of a “feminist lens of science”. Various feminist philosophers and critics have taken hugely diversified approaches to exploring the hierarchal structure of scientific industries. A more limited feminist approach looks purely at the consequential issues of exclusion, examining issues of employment and discrimination and attempting to rectify these after they have occurred. This is a relatively contained approach to gender disparities within STEM, in contrast to more encompassing ideologies of socialist or existentialist feminism that examines the reason women are excluded in the primary instance, and how their exclusion permeates scientific practice. Existentialist feminism upholds that sex-based discrimination occurs not as a result of biological differences, but due to the social valuation of those biological differences. It is, as Sue Rosser points out, “man’s conception of woman as Other” that leads to ostracisation. In a similar vein, socialist feminism defines knowledge as a product of human investigation rather than an innate property of scientific practice. As a consequence, knowledge is inevitably influenced by social values and indeed, cannot exist without bias. As Rosser points out, this has a very tangible impact at industry level, where “the social shaping of technology has often been conceptualised in terms of men, excluding women at all levels”. So long as the notion of conventional masculinity saturates scientific practice, the proportion of women who not only pursue science but who are recognised for their work will remain diminished. It is no coincidence that of professionals working across STEM industries, only 28 per cent are women. Sexism is not merely a product of academic culture, it is ingrained within the practice of science itself. The study of evolutionary biology is a prime example, where Darwin posited in 1859 “the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of women”. A decade later, Antoinette Brown Blackwell proved this to be an illogical conclusion, much of the research conducted was conducted with this in mind. As a result, foundational assumptions about the makeup of “human nature” were built upon these misguided foundations. It was not until much later that this groundwork was actively revised in mainstream science. Primatologists Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Biruté Galdikas demonstrated that there was very little, if anything, biologically different in the “moral and intellectual” capacities of men and women by investigating the evolutionary significance of female primates. Despite this, science, particularly in the life sciences, remains endowed with sexism that has arisen as a consequence of systemic inequality. One ramification of the surplus of male bioscientists that has been historically upheld is the stigmatisation and mystification of female anatomy and the differences of treatment for various diseases. That is, the predominance of male scientists results in lack of female subjects in medical experiments, leading to “under-diagnosis, inappropriate treatment and higher death rates for cardiovascular and other disease in women”, as Rosser points out. Such a lack of research not only directly results in higher suffering in women, but it is also indicative of a broader culture of apathy and negligence in the treatment of women. Much of these issues arise as a consequence of what is known as the “gender data gap”, a term coined by feminist journalist Caroline Criado Perez. Essentially, our default human is male and our data disproportionately accounts for them. This impacts every area of life, from women being 50 per cent more likely to be misdiagnosed after a heart attack (heart-fail experiment subjects are primarily male) to being 17 per cent more likely to die in a car crash (crash-test dummies are designed with masculine anatomy). These implications are severe, particularly in the realms of psychology, where diagnoses and psychological science has been used as a weapon to marginalise and obscure the autonomy of women. The etymology of the word “hysteria” has its roots from the Latin word for “uterus”, the construction of the word sexist from its conception. Since then, women who have advocated for change have consistently been deemed mentally unfit to serve within social spheres. This notion has bled into psychological practice and shapes much of the diagnostic procedure we see today, however subliminally. Further, the conduct of psychological studies is perhaps inescapably plagued by bias and assumption. This exists within every area of science but is particularly poignant in psychology, where successful post-publication replication is at its lowest. Whilst the reasons for why replication is so low within this field is contested, it undoubtedly means that psychological studies are subject to greater subjectivity in regards to their theoretical frameworks. This, in turn, enables researchers’ own biases and assumptions to saturate the work they conduct. Psychological studies examining sexism often treat it as a distinct social phenomenon that occurs in particular settings rather than a pervasive behaviour ingrained within institutions and scientific practice. One study examines the British Psychological Society’s guidelines surrounding ethical scientific practice, but particularly in regard to the prevention of sexism. The primary issue found here is that the guidelines preventing sexism are concerned more with the wellbeing of the subjects than the epistemic frameworks of the studies themselves. This results in a relatively poor understanding of the way androcentrism has permeated science’s theoretical framework, not merely its applications. When we look at the impact of sexism in psychological and medical sciences in tandem, it becomes evident the way sexist institutions have bled not only into the repercussions of scientific research, but in the very frameworks we use to conduct research. The systemic issues ingrained within the practice of science become tangibly visible in the gender disparities that exist within the sciences. In the US, women earn half of total science and engineering bachelor’s degrees, but only 39 per cent of postdoctoral fellowships and 18 per cent of professorships. Female academics from around the world are pioneering solutions to the persistent gender-discrimination problems facing the scientific community. Liisa Husu suggests that the key to tackling gendered scientific practice is by examining the “non-events”, the things that seemingly do not occur. These include a lack of referencing for female colleagues in publication, lack of recognition or attribution for work (both contemporary and historic). The lack of attendance of female professors and academics at conferences is another contributing factor, as such events not only enable cross-collaboration and open practice to occur without impediment, but facilitate connections to be formed within the academic world. The establishment of ethics committees that oversee scientific publications are also hugely influential. For example, in the US, the National Institutes of Health Funding implemented a regulation that women must be encompassed in “human studies”. These regulations need to be enforced and upheld with rigour and commitment. They cannot be perceived as extraneous or superfluous to the research conducted. This can be aided by requiring pre-publication replication or at the very least, evaluation by researchers independent of the original study. Our standard human is not a white, 70 kg man in his 30s. Our people are bold and bright and diverse and our science has no choice but to reflect that. The face of the scientific community has for too long been dominated by a voice that has been ignorant and apathetic to the suffering it has inflicted. To accept and enable these inbuilt systemic biases to persist is a gross injustice to the communities that have suffered as a result of silence. You are a scientist, we say. You are a beating, breathing, vibrant contributor to our collective pursuit of knowledge. Your voice is vital and worthy of being heard. And heard it will be. References: Arnhart, L., 1992. Feminism, Primatology, and Ethical Naturalism. Politics and the Life Sciences, 11(2), pp.157-170. Australian Government. 2021. Second national data report on girls and women in STEM. [online] Colwell, R., 2020. Women Scientists Have the Evidence About Sexism. [online] The Atlantic Condor, S., 1991. Sexism in Psychological Research: A Brief Note. Feminism & Psychology, 1(3), pp.430-434. England, C., 2016. One in five men have erectile dysfunction. 90% of women experience PMS. Guess which one researchers study more?. Espach, A., 2017. What It Really Means When You Call a Woman “Hysterical”. [online] Vogue. Ferro, S., 2013. Science Is Institutionally Sexist. Here Are 4 Ways To Help Fix It. [online] Popular Science. Plato.stanford.edu. 2020. Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [online] Rosser, S., 2005. Through the Lenses of Feminist Theory: Focus on Women and Information Technology. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 26(1), pp.1-23. Samuel, S., 2019. Women suffer needless pain because almost everything is designed for men. [online] Vox. Slawson, N., 2019. 'Women have been woefully neglected': does medical science have a gender problem?. [online] the Guardian. Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

< Back to Issue 2 Postdoc Possibilities Thinking about postgraduate research? This column has some advice for you, courtesy of a recent PhD graduate. by Renee Papaluca 10 December 2021 Edited by Ruby Dempsey and Breana Galea Illustrated by Casey Boswell The idea of (dis)order is apparent in many scientific fields. One example of this is artificial light at night, which can disrupt our ecosystems. I caught up with Marty Lockett, a recent PhD graduate in this field, to learn more about the research pathway and their experience studying science at the University of Melbourne. Marty Lockett. Image included with permission. Marty recently completed his PhD in the Urban Light Lab, School of Biosciences. In his spare time, Marty enjoys birdwatching, Lego and science fiction. What was the ‘light-bulb moment’ that prompted you to study science? “I have always enjoyed the outdoors. For example, bushwalking, snorkelling, birdwatching — all that sort of stuff. I am more of a latecomer to science. About 10 years ago, I took long-service leave from my job. I used to be a lawyer. I ended up spending a lot of time doing volunteer work for conservation and restoration organisations… and I was exposed for the first time to the world of science and ecology. The work involved things like cleaning up rubbish, tree planting, weed removal, and banding and recapturing birds with researchers. It was really eye-opening! I realised I could do this for a job… I had never studied science, apart from chemistry at school. I had never been exposed to ecology or really considered it as a potential career option. Having that opportunity to immerse myself in nature in a more constructive and helpful way, rather than being a passive observer, really got me thinking.” Why did you choose to complete a research pathway? “So, I came into this not having an undergraduate degree in science. I completed a Masters of Environment to begin with. My thinking there was to try and get into environmental management, conservation or restoration management. As part of that masters, I completed a couple of third-year animal behaviour subjects. I found this really interesting as I hadn’t studied much about the behaviour of wildlife. Off the back of that, I decided to focus on this area for my research capstone subject. I met Dr Therésa Jones [current supervisor] and … did a mini research project on artificial light at night which is her area of specialization. From there, I got hooked on research… I wanted to find out more and, from there, decided to complete a PhD… There’s so much to learn about the world. Being in the position where the world now knows something that it once didn’t because of your work is really powerful.” What was the focus of your PhD research? Why did you choose this area? “My main project was looking at the effects of artificial light at night on an important food chain in Eucalyptus woodlands.” “There's a lot of research on the effects of artificial light at night on individual organisms… There's less but increasing research on interactions between species. As you spread out wider, there's [even] less research on more complex communities and on the wider cascading ecological effects of artificial light at night. I wanted to look into the effects of artificial light on a system that was underexplored and really important here in Australia.” “I chose a specific Eucalyptus woodland food chain consisting of river red gum trees, lerp psyllids, and birds that eat them. Lerps are the white bumps you sometimes see on Eucalyptus leaves. These are made by the nymphs [juveniles] of insects called lerp psyllids. Psyllids feed on leaf sap. Since eucalyptus sap is very rich in carbohydrates, they secrete the excess carbohydrates and use it to build little white domes over themselves. This takes a resource which is completely indigestible by most animals [Eucalyptus sap] and it turns it into something that is highly digestible by a whole range of animals… like birds, other insects, possums [and] bats. So lerps are a really key food resource in Eucalyptus woodlands. At the next level of the food chain, I chose a bird that was particularly dependent on lerps known as bell miners. I wanted to see the effect of artificial light at night at each level of this food chain. This is because all three organisms were vulnerable to… [the] effects of artificial light at night in different ways, and impacts at one level of the food chain might have cascading effects on other levels.” What did your day-to-day life as a PhD researcher look like? “It's really varied. In my case, I broke it down into three main work categories. So first up, you've got reading and writing. In the early days, before you start doing any experiments, you've got to learn a lot about your area, find out what's known, what's unknown, form hypotheses and figure out ways of testing them…” “In the middle, there is much more time spent on fieldwork and lab work. The extent of this will vary depending on the project… In my case, it was probably 50/50… An amazing amount of research involves what we refer to as ‘art and crafts’ where, after you design an experiment, you've got to then figure out a way to test that experiment on a tight budget. For example, building insect traps; you have to think about how you will make it work logistically. You need something that can be easily broken down and transported, but is rigid enough to stand up in a street, doesn't blow over in the wind and all those kinds of things. Fieldwork involved rigging up electric lights in a paddock, finding ways to stop parrots eating sound recorders; all kinds of weird stuff I never thought I'd be doing. Then there’s the actual fieldwork itself — catching bugs, measuring trees — whatever it is you need to do to gather data.” “The third main activity is statistical analysis and coding, which often go hand in hand. Most of [my] analysis was done in R [programming language], which was another thing that I hadn't done before… I hadn't really appreciated, as an outsider, just how much time scientists spend on statistics and coding. Coding governs a whole lot of things [in research], not just statistics. So you'll use coding to measure the number and diversity of vocalisations in birdsong recordings. You also may use it for physical mapping of study sites. In stats, there is obviously coding involved in statistical analysis, but also for creating the plots for your papers. It's all coding!” “At the end, you come back to reading and writing. You've gathered all your data, you've written up your results and then you've got to put them in context for your reader.” What advice would you give to students considering this research pathway? “There's two aspects to a PhD. On one hand, you are researching something that is of interest to you. This might be a particular organism, process or scientific question… That's a really important element of the PhD. But the other element is about you upskilling. Basically, a PhD is like a research apprenticeship and it's mostly self-driven… Your supervisor is there to guide you but you've got to come up with all the questions yourself, and figure out how to test them. I feel like it's really important to make the most of both these aspects; you want to do a great research project and find out something interesting that the world didn't know before. But you also want to make sure you're making the most of this time to meet people, take on skills, try things out and get outside your comfort zone. This is really important in making yourself as attractive as possible to future employers and a well-rounded researcher.” What are your future plans following your PhD? “I would like to take these skills and apply them in an in-house ecologist or research position. I’d like to do work where there's a chance to both conduct research and apply what we know to achieve better outcomes for wildlife. So, for example, working on the practical application of artificial light, working with people who make decisions about installing artificial light fixtures and helping them to find better ways to balance the needs of humans and the needs of wildlife.” Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

< Back to Issue 4 Real Life Replicants by Elijah McEvoy 1 July 2023 Edited by Yasmin Potts and Megane Boucherat Illustrated by Jolin See Hal, Ultron and (of course) the Terminator. Comparisons between these fictional, world-destroying, artificial intelligence systems and those in our current age of AI are seemingly never-ending. As a child born with a lightsaber in hand, I find these sensationalist remarks endlessly entertaining. Not only because it baffles me to see concepts once relegated to the realm of science fiction be discussed as serious news topics, but also because they’ve got their references all mixed up. The current challenge posed by the new wave of generative artificial intelligence doesn’t come in the form of a ruthless, gun-toting Arnie. It comes in the form of replicants. Just like these uncannily human androids from Ridley Scott’s cult classic Blade Runner, the rapidly increasing capacity of AI to talk, look and create like humans is beginning to blur the line between what is authentically human and what is the product of an algorithm. From the posh C3P0 to the snarky Cortana, having a friendly AI sidekick has always been a childhood dream of mine. This dream has now become a reality with the rise in AI chat-bots. At the forefront of these is Replika, an app that enables users to talk to their own personalized AI via the use of text-like messages. For its two million users (1), Replika provides a variety of functions. For some, Replika acts as a friend in times of loneliness; a feature that contributed to its spike in users during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (2). For others, as founder Eugenia Kuyda suggests, it provides a space for users to “open up” about personal or mental health issues and “feel accepted” by a human-like figure (1). For many though, Replika is a digital romantic partner. While it is easy to snicker at the concept of an AI girlfriend, those with past relationship trauma or those living in environments that may be hostile towards their sexuality have used Replika as an outlet to explore genuine feelings of love in a safe setting (3). However, with such attachment comes the chance for exploitation. As stated by Nir Eisikovits, Director of the Applied Ethics Centre at the University of Massachusetts, his concern is “not whether machines are sentient” but rather our own tendency “to imagine that they are” (4). Like the holographic billboards for the AI “JOI” in Blade Runner 2049, suggestive advertisements and aggressive flirting by the AI itself have all been employed by Replika to encourage users to stay on the app and pay a premium subscription for explicit content (5). While Replika has since removed sexual material, the large backlash from users at this decision (6) highlights the unethically coercive power such mimicry of human personality could have on consumers. For years, we’ve been warned of the danger of manipulative TV advertisements encouraging excessive junk food consumption and gambling. Imagine what could be done when that ad is no longer a 30 second video but instead an anthropomorphized AI tailored exactly to you, your interests and your vulnerabilities. Not only is AI replicating the way we talk, but also how we look. From videos of an animated Tom Cruise to convincing photos of a Balenciaga-wearing Pope (7), advanced deepfake videos and prompt-generated images from AI systems like DALL-E are becoming easier to create by the day (8). While the most prominent use of this technology is currently in the form of harmless memes, it can and has been used for more sinister means. Women across the world have had their faces used in non-consensual deepfake pornography, often as a form of revenge or blackmail (9). Furthermore, a fabricated video of Volodymyr Zelensky surrendering to Vladimir Putin that spread on social media last year proves AI’s unsettling potential in political disinformation (8). While fakes like that of Zelensky may have been taken down quickly due to easily identifiable tells, in many cases the damage has already been done the moment people see these videos or images. Mistrust in the news is heightened and real evidence can be accused of being AI generated, a strategy already implemented by Donald Trump to dismiss evidence of his misogyny (8). Although the current usage of this technology is concerning enough, the degradation of truth within society will only worsen as these replicants become increasingly accurate and faster to produce (8). Still, it is the ability for AI to complete jobs once thought to be uniquely human that will result in the largest change to the current status quo. Latest estimates from Goldman Sachs state that close to 300 million jobs globally could be automated by the current AI wave (10). The threat of job losses due to automation is far from new, stretching all the way back to 1811 with the infamous Luddites protesting factory machines (11). However, generative AI is placing a greater variety of jobs in jeopardy due to its ability to exude human creativity, giving rise to what Stanford Professor Victor R. Lee entitles an “authenticity crisis” (12). One of those jobs is that of writers. A common phrase amongst movie reviewers today is “this could have been written by an AI”. While usually used as a jab against the latest Marvel movie, large language models like Chat GPT that are capable of identifying and mimicking patterns in writing make it more than just a joke. Amongst calls for better conditions for screenwriters, a key demand from the Writers Guild of America in this year's Los Angeles writers’ strike was that AI will not be used to write or rewrite scripts (13). When you combine the growing authenticity of these AI with the greedy desires of major studios, it is not a far cry to suggest that producers may use AI to quickly generate scripts for generic soap operas and cash grab Netflix movies, leaving the human creatives to simply ‘clean-up’ these stories at a cut pay rate. Despite all these concerns, generative AI does have the ability to immeasurably improve society. The capacity of this technology to increase workplace efficiency (10), accelerate scientific progress (14) and constantly amuse us with clips of a rapping Joe Biden is undeniable. With the cat out of the bag, innovation in these areas cannot nor should not be halted completely. However, if sci-fi movies have taught me anything useful, it’s that we should not be blinded by the potential of scientific progress. Whether it be through governmental action to regulate the use of AI in industry or the scientific development of better deepfake-spotting technology to help stifle disinformation, implementing safeguards around AI is crucial in avoiding its “ethical debt” (15). Whilst looking to the world of science fiction as an indication of our future may be a bit far-fetched, it may also be a needed reminder of the world scientists should try not to replicate. References Tong A. AI company restores erotic role play after backlash from users ‘married’ to their bots [Internet]. The Sydney Morning Herald. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/ai-company-restores-erotic-roleplay-after-backlash-from-users-married-to-their-bots-20230326-p5cvao.html Clarke L. ‘I learned to love the bot’: meet the chatbots that want to be your best friend. The Observer [Internet]. 2023 Mar 19 [cited 2023 May 14]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/19/i-learned-to-love-the-bot-meet-the-chatbots-that-want-to-be-your-best-friend The rise and fall of replika [Internet]. [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WSKKolgL2U Eisikovits N. AI isn’t close to becoming sentient – the real danger lies in how easily we’re prone to anthropomorphize it [Internet]. The Conversation. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: http://theconversation.com/ai-isnt-close-to-becoming-sentient-the-real-danger-lies-in-how-easily-were-prone-to-anthropomorphize-it-200525 Cole S. ‘My ai is sexually harassing me’: replika users say the chatbot has gotten way too horny [Internet]. Vice. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.vice.com/en/article/z34d43/my-ai-is-sexually-harassing-me-replika-chatbot-nudes ‘My wife is dead’: How a software update ‘lobotomised’ these online lovers. ABC News [Internet]. 2023 Feb 28 [cited 2023 May 14]; Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-03-01/replika-users-fell-in-love-with-their-ai-chatbot-companion/102028196 How to spot an ai-generated image like the ‘balenciaga pope’ [Internet]. Time. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://time.com/6266606/how-to-spot-deepfake-pope/ Wong M. We haven’t seen the worst of fake news [Internet]. The Atlantic. 2022 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/deepfake-synthetic-media-technology-rise-disinformation/672519/ Atillah IE. AI could make deepfake porn an even bigger threat for women [Internet]. euronews. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/22/a-lifelong-sentence-the-women-trapped-in-a-deepfake-porn-hell Toh M. 300 million jobs could be affected by latest wave of AI, says Goldman Sachs | CNN Business [Internet]. CNN. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/chatgpt-ai-automation-jobs-impact-intl-hnk/index.html McClelland C. The impact of artificial intelligence - widespread job losses [Internet]. IoT For All. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.iotforall.com/impact-of-artificial-intelligence-job-losses Hollywood writers are on strike over an AI threat that some are warning is coming for you next. ABC News [Internet]. 2023 May 5 [cited 2023 May 14]; Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-06/hollywood-writer-s-strike-over-pay-and-artificial-intelligence/102296704 Lee VR. Generative AI is forcing people to rethink what it means to be authentic [Internet]. The Conversation. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: http://theconversation.com/generative-ai-is-forcing-people-to-rethink-what-it-means-to-be-authentic-204347 The AI revolution in science [Internet]. [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-revolution-science Fiesler C. AI has social consequences, but who pays the price? Tech companies’ problem with ‘ethical debt’ [Internet]. The Conversation. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: http://theconversation.com/ai-has-social-consequences-but-who-pays-the-price-tech-companies-problem-with-ethical-debt-203375 Previous article Next article back to MIRAGE

< Back to Issue 2 Mastering Chaos with Pen and Paper The mathematical laws which govern our chaotic and complex universe have found special use in describing the rapidly changing global climate. The work of three research scientists, with backgrounds in physics and meteorology, offered crucial insight into models describing the chaotic processes of climate change, granting them the 2021 Physics Nobel Prize. by Xen Papailiadis 10 December 2021 Edited by Mia Horsfall & Katherine Tweedie Illustrated by Jess Nguyen The world in which we live is densely packed with randomness and disorder. From the stampede of pedestrians navigating a major intersection and meshing together at the zebra crossing, to a flock of blackbirds hovering above like a shapeless dark cloud. All seems random and without any sense of pattern. However, at a very fundamental level, all of these processes can be described by logic and equations; as once remarked by Galileo, “the order of the natural world is written in the language of mathematics”. Through the tireless efforts of natural scientists from across the world, over millennia we have developed a remarkable understanding of the nature of the physical world. At the atomic scale of quantum physics right up to the largest astronomical objects in our universe, physics can both describe the present and decisively predict the future and past of a system. This is all with a pinch of salt, of course, as we run into some serious issues where probability and uncertainty takes over at the quantum level (best saved for another feature article), however, by and large we are capable of determining how a rocket will launch into space and where it will land on dry land, thanks to this deterministic tool. This may seem like the end of the story, however, Mother Nature will not dispel all her secrets at once. In the past century, scientists studying random behaviour, such as how clouds move and disperse or how the small fluctuations in the stock market can be tracked, have been at a loss applying deterministic methods (i.e. methods where we can determine or predict the outcome from a few fixed starting conditions) to these systems. There seemed to be no way to accurately predict the evolution of the system through time. This began with the likes of Poincare fruitlessly predicting the future movement of the planets in our solar system at the request of a monarch, and later Lorenz with his breakthrough and accidental discovery of the mathematical field of chaos itself. “Chaos Theory” is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. In other words, a reckoning with systems that display persistent randomness and a perceived lack of total predictability. There is a nuance to this, however, as a system can simultaneously appear ordered, yet harbour chaotic behaviour within (as Lorenz discovered). Alternatively the systems may seem entirely chaotic however it obeys certain patterns when looked at closely (such as the aforementioned flocking birds). Among all the far reaching applications of Chaos Theory in describing the natural and human-made world, the most recent development has also been deemed worthy of the Nobel Prize. On Tuesday 5th October of this year, three leading scientists in their respective fields were awarded the title of the Nobel Prize, including a share in a $1.53 AUD million reward, by the Royal Swedish Academy of the Sciences. The Nobel recipients are Syukuro Manabe of Princeton University, Klaus Hasselmann of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, and Giorgio Parisi of Sapienza University of Rome. The prize itself was awarded “for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex physical systems”, including “the physical modelling of Earth’s climate… and reliably predicting global warming”. This is the first occasion a Nobel Prize in Physics has been attributed to the field of environmental science and studying the future of the world’s changing climate, and initiates an interesting chapter in the interplay between research in physics, mathematics, and the global climate in decades to come. Receiving one half of the total prize money, Professor Parisi was awarded for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales. Having been at the cutting edge of complex systems research since the 1980’s, Parisi observed hidden patterns in disordered complex materials. His discoveries in understanding and describing the behaviour of these seemingly random materials and phenomena has far reaching contributions into biology, neuroscience and machine learning. Parisi’s work provides a mathematical framework for studying the evolution of the global climate as an example of a complex system. The Earth’s climate is a complex system of vital importance to humankind. Professors Manabe and Hasselmann, two senior climate scientists, shared in the other half of the prize for their contributions in modelling the Earth’s climate system to reliably predict global warming and climate change. In the 1960’s, Professor Manabe led the development of physical modelling of the Earth’s climate, uniting previously separate models of the ocean and atmosphere to demonstrate how increased levels of carbon dioxide impact on temperature on the Earth’s surface. This has effectively laid the foundations of modern climate models used today. Professor Hasselmann followed this up with research of his own a decade later, finding a link between local weather and climate. Hasselmann and his colleagues produced a model which described why climate models can be reliable despite weather being changeable and chaotic, and his work has been used to prove that the increased temperature in the atmosphere is due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. The decades-long work of all three Nobel Laureates fundamentally shaped our understanding and ability to predict how the chaotic and interwoven behavior of the atmosphere, oceans and land will change over time, and strengthen our understanding of the changing climate on our planet. As put by the Nobel Committee for Physics, their discoveries demonstrate that our knowledge about the climate rests on a “solid scientific foundation”, one which can only grow with future generations of climate scientists, physicists and inquirers of the world under a scientific lens. The world in which we live is a random and chaotic one. Despite this sea of unpredictability, a deeper understanding of its mathematical nature can reveal patterns which have far reaching ramifications to our society and even our existence on planet Earth. The Nobel Prize in Physics is one significant step toward greater understanding of real-world complex systems which impact us, and a deeper recognition of the impact we have upon the Earth’s climate. Our ability to understand complex systems is one of a myriad of stepping stones into the great unknowns of science. To those turning away from studies in mathematics and physics for their seemingly abstract and complex nature, the future of our society is written in these laws and it is up to us to master them with pen and paper. References: Bradley, Larry. “Strange Attractors.” Chaos & Fractals, 2010. https://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/attractors.html Gardini, L., Grebogi, C. & Lenci, S. “Chaos theory and applications: a retrospective on lessons learned and missed or new opportunities.” Nonlinear Dyn 102, 643–644 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-020-05903-0 Irfan, Umair. “Earth’s climate is chaotic. The winners of the 2021 Nobel Prize in physics found patterns in the noise.” Vox, October 5, 2021. https://www.vox.com/22710418/2021-physics-nobel-prize-climate-change-chaos-model Oestreicher, Christian. “A history of chaos theory.” Dialogues in clinical neuroscience vol. 9,3 (2007): 279-89. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2007.9.3/coestreicher Plus Magazine. “Maths in a minute: Poincaré and the beginnings of chaos.” Universtiy of Cambridge, February 28, 2017. https://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-beginnings-chaos Press release: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2021. Thu. 25 Nov 2021. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2021/press-release/ Randall, David. “Winners of 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics built mathematics of climate modeling, making predictions of global warming and modern weather forecasting possible.” The Conversation, October 6, 2021. https://theconversation.com/winners-of-2021-nobel-prize-in-physics-built-mathematics-of-climate-modeling-making-predictions-of-global-warming-and-modern-weather-forecasting-possible-169329 Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

< Back to Issue 4 Fool Me Once by Julia Lockerd 1 July 2023 Edited by Tanya Kovacevic and Elijah McEvoy Illustrated by Sonia Santosa I have rabies. I’m absolutely sure of it. I mean, I can't really tell, but that’s the silent killer, right? You don’t know you’re rabid till it’s all over, and you’re foaming at the mouth and biting your student tutor on the leg. Despite being completely safe here in Australia with its complete lack of rabies-having animals, I’m still pretty sure I’ve managed to catch it. Next week it will all be over for me and my tutor. Sorry, James. Of course, it’s not actually rabies that I’ve contracted, but a much more common condition: Medical Student Syndrome (1). Last week in my lectures, we learned all the ins, outs, and symptoms of the rabies virus. So, naturally, now we all have it. This health-related anxiety is a prime example of how our human brains can trick us into experiencing phantom symptoms. The same cognitive veil is used in clinical trials all over the world in order to test the efficacy of new drugs. We’ve all felt it. That moment when you question, ‘Is this real, or is my mind making its reality?’ We call this the placebo effect. The placebo effect is crucial to modern and historical experimental design. The ‘trickable’ nature of the human mind has changed the course of drug development as we know it. The effects’ success hinges on a patient's belief that they are receiving treatment for their ailment. The simple belief in a cure can often result in real physiological changes in an individual. This makes the placebo effect a very powerful tool in the development of new drugs for the market. In a placebo-controlled trial, half of the sample population will be blindly given a placebo, and the other half of the drug being tested. In order for a potential treatment to be considered effective, it must produce more significant results than the placebo group (2). We must improve our approach to designing and researching hypotheses. Can we use what we know about the placebo effect to make more accurate claims about modern pharmaceutical development? Well, in 2017, Dr. Sara Vanbheim of the Arctic University of Norway published a study that brought into consideration the possible effects of differing sexual characteristics on placebo efficacy (3). This idea could restructure the way experiments are designed going forward and potentially provoke a possible review of drugs already on the market. Is it possible that traditionally marginalised groups are underrepresented in the clinical trial process? Can we restructure experiments to be more inclusive? Are changes even really necessary? These questions were investigated through the compilation and calculation of placebo and nocebo effects on men and women over multiple previously conducted studies mostly centering around physical pain and the administration of analgesia. The term ‘nocebo’ defines the antithesis of a placebo (4), referring to adverse side effects a subject feels when given an inert version of the test drug. While placebos tend to have an analgesic effect, nocebos often cause negative effects or emotions when the subjects are told that they should expect/anticipate them. Before discussing any of these questions, it is worth noting that the Norwegian study focuses solely on classic sexual differences between cis-gender men and women. Though both keywords ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ were included in the study, research surrounding the specific effects of gender identity and gender-affirming therapies on placebos has not been thoroughly conducted as of 2023. It is with this focus that the following hypotheses are stated (3): “1) placebo responses would be stronger or more frequently observed in males than in females, 2) nocebo responses would be stronger or more frequently observed in females than in males, 3) verbally induced placebo responses would be more frequently observed in males than in females, and 4) conditioned nocebo responses would be more frequently observed in females than in males.” Results concluded that there was indeed a significant correlation between sex and placebo/nocebo effects when concerning pain relief. But what is truly fascinating is that while men received elevated levels of a placebo effect, such as reduced symptoms and analgesia, women were more susceptible to hyperalgesia and negative emotions. Those supposed ‘side effects’ appear to weigh more heavily on women (3). What does this say about how men and women process pain and information? The Norwegian study discusses the role of ‘psychophysiological mechanisms’ in pain pathways. Or, more simply, How stress and anxiety can affect the pain the brain perceives. In 8 of the 12 studies, men experienced significantly stronger analgesic effects from the placebo than women (3). It is plausible that men react more strongly to pain induced by stress hormones. This would explain why when taking a placebo, their anxiety level would decrease, and they would receive higher levels of analgesia than their female counterparts (3). Another study, upon which the Norwegian argument builds, investigates placebo delivery methods and their effect on perceived pain in men and women. In this study, men relied far more on verbal queues to provide analgesia, whereas women received a more significant effect from classic conditioning (5). These studies bring into question both the methodological and physiological effects of placebos on different sexes. What do these differences tell us about how men and women perceive the world? And what does this mean for the future of the placebo? The result of all of these studies is to show not whether placebos are bad or good, reliable or unreliable, but instead to highlight the differences in the physiological and psychological links when looking at different groups of people. At its core, a placebo is simply a trick of the brain, a psychological mirage. While the basis and reliability of placebos can be debated at length, their effect on the human brain teaches us something about ourselves societally. In all areas of medicine, the inclusion of people from all different backgrounds, genders, ethnicities, and ages is crucial so professionals know how to identify and treat various manifestations of a disease with grace and care. Now I know James responds better to verbal commands; I’ll be sure to tell him he has rabies the next time I see him. References Henning Schumann J. I contracted medical student syndrome. You probably will too. [Internet]. AAMC. [cited 2023 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/news/i-contracted-medical-student-syndrome-you-probably-will-too Harvard Health Publishing. The power of the placebo effect - Harvard Health [Internet]. Harvard Health. Harvard Health; 2021. Available from: https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect Vambheim S, Flaten MA. A systematic review of sex differences in the placebo and the nocebo effect. Journal of Pain Research. 2017 Jul;Volume 10:1831–9. National Cancer Institute NCI. Definition of nocebo effects [Internet]. www.cancer.gov . 2011. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/nocebo-effect Enck P, Klosterhalfen S. Does Sex/Gender Play a Role in Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Conflicting Evidence From Clinical Trials and Experimental Studies. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2019 Mar 4;13. Previous article Next article back to MIRAGE

< Back to Issue 5 Why Do We Gossip? Lily McCann 24 October 2023 Edited by Celina Kumala Illustrated by Rachel Ko Have you ever heard of ‘Scold’s bridle’? A metal restraint, fitted with a gag, that was strapped about the face as a medieval punishment for excessive chatter; gossip, it seems, was not received too fondly in the Middle Ages. While the bridle may have gone out of fashion long ago, today the word gossip still carries negative connotations. The Oxford Dictionary, for instance, defines gossip as “informal talk or stories about other people’s private lives, that may be unkind or not true” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2023). Entries in the Urban Dictionary use yet stronger terms, going so far as to describe gossip as the “garbage of stupid silly ignorant people” (Lorenzo, 2006). Is this too harsh? Cruz et al. (2021) propose a much more neutral definition in their analysis of frameworks to study gossip, concluding that gossip is “a sender communicating to a receiver about a target who is absent or unaware of the content”. Whether the gossip conveys positive or negative content — otherwise known as its valence — is not a requirement of the definition itself. Gossip, then, is not always “unkind” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2023) or “garbage” (Lorenzo, 2006). In fact, with a bit of further reading, we can see that this “informal talk” has played an important part in our evolution and even serves positive purposes in society. In the first sense, gossip is an important facilitator of safety. It allows dangerous situations to be identified: spreading the knowledge that a certain individual is prone to violence, for instance, ensures the rest of a community takes care of their own safety with regards to that individual. On a different note, passing about the fact that another individual is skilled in certain aspects of resource procurement allows wider access to these resources. It is easy to see in these examples how gossip could give a selective advantage in the survival of societies. But the influence of gossip goes further than this. It has been shown that gossip in fact encourages cooperation and generosity (Wu et al., 2015). How? The crucial mediator is reputation (Nowak, 2006). Reputation is incredibly important - see Taylor Swift’s 2017 album for more. A poor reputation leads to ostracisation, and for an individual in prehistoric societies, this could be fatal. Cultivating a good reputation among peers thousands of years ago, as today, improves the chances of success in life by increasing access to resources and the willingness of others to help you. Positive gossip can facilitate all this. So, how do we foster positive gossip? What will encourage someone to put in a good word for us? The most effective approach is to act in a way that benefits that individual. It predisposes them to spread the word of our generosity, helping to build a reputation for goodness that will in turn have positive outcomes for ourselves. Thus, it’s easy to see how behaviours that foster good gossip are incentivised in our everyday lives. This propensity to spread the knowledge of how certain individuals interact with others has been incredibly impactful in the development of human societies. The fact that our species can flourish and sustain itself in such immense populations requires a high level of cooperation - which enables us to share resources and productivity - even with people we do not know. Otherwise known as indirect reciprocity, this ability to work with strangers is enabled by reputation (Nowak, 2006). How else do we know that it is safe to interact with a stranger, other than through the means of gossip, which informs us of their reliability and trustworthiness? But what about when gossip is incorrect? The Oxford definition hints at the possibility that information spread through gossip “may be…not true”. Can untrue gossip hinder our progress, by limiting interactions with individuals who may have the potential to help us, or promoting those interactions that would better have been avoided? And if gossip can be incorrect, does that not render reputation meaningless? What is the incentive to be good, if gossip could label you as a bad egg, regardless (Nieper et al., 2022)? Incorrectly negative gossip can be extremely impactful for the subject of that gossip. Studies have shown that it decreases productivity and prosocial behaviour - not to mention burdening victims with the psychological effects of ostracisation, injustice and loneliness (Kong, 2018; Martinescu et al., 2021). Through gossip, we can exert immense power over other beings. It is understandable, then, that we fear gossip, and try to discount it by painting it as “garbage” (Lorenzo, 2006), “unkind” or “not true” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2023). And yet, whilst negative gossip can be a detriment, positive gossip can yield great benefits, reinforcing prosocial behaviour, fostering cooperation and promoting generosity. So, rather than fearing gossip, perhaps we ought to acknowledge its benefits and harness it for good. Perhaps it's worth considering how we can each use gossip to exert a bit of good upon our world. References Dores Cruz, T. D., Nieper, A. S., Testori, M., Martinescu, E., & Beersma, B. (2021). An Integrative Definition and Framework to Study Gossip. Group & Organization Management, 46(2), 252-285. http://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121992887 Kong, M. (2018). Effect of Perceived Negative Workplace Gossip on Employees’ Behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology , 9(2728). http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01112 Lorenzo, A. (2006). Gossip . Urban Dictionary. Accessed October 10, 2023. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gossip Martinescu, E., Jansen, W., & Beersma, B. (2021). Negative Gossip Decreases Targets’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior by Decreasing Social Inclusion: A Multi-Method Approach. Group and Organization Management, 46(3), 463-497. http://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120986876 Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. (2023). Gossip - definition . Accessed October 10, 2023. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/gossip_1#:~:text=gossip-,noun,all%20the%20gossip%20you%20hear . Nieper, A. S., Beersma, B., Dijkstra, M. T. M., & van Kleef, G. A. (2022). When and why does gossip increase prosocial behavior? Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 315-320. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.10.009 Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation . Science, 314(5805), 1560-1563. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133755 Wu, J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2015). When does gossip promote generosity? Indirect reciprocity under the shadow of the future. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 923-930. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615595272 Wicked back to

< Back to Print Editions Print Edition 2: Issue 4, 5 and 6 2023/2024 ABOUT THIS EDITION In various languages, the word ‘science’ can be traced back to its Latin origins of simply meaning ‘to know’. Today, explorers, curators, and researchers of scientific knowledge understand this as a systematic acquisition of information, with observations made and theories tested as we try to comprehend our world. For true advancement, science requires reciprocity: the mutual sharing between ‘scientists’ and individuals of society alike. In such a discourse we celebrate the beauty of scientific progress, whilst too holding space for the unease new unknowns can bring. Science communication is how we can continue to alleviate this dissonance, bridging knowledge gaps and seeking scientific understanding for all. The creation of Issue 4: Mirage, Issue 5: Wicked and Issue 6: Elemental over 2023 and 2024 has seen contributors create ever more informative content, aiming to make the innovations of science readily accessible to the public. Through experimenting with new formats, genres and mediums for illustrations, our contributors have formed a body of work that seeks to captivate and question. FEATURED ISSUES Issue 4: Mirage This issue explores the realms of science that are not what they seem. Is that shape in the distance reality or just a figment of your imagination? Issue 5: Wicked This issue spotlights the mischievous, malevolent and morally dubious. Issue 6: Elemental This issue explores the building blocks that comprise the world we live in. PURCHASE A COPY Keen to purchase a copy of the magazine? Click here to do so, at an OmniSci Magazine exclusive price! Alternatively, visit the Science Gallery Melbourne to find our magazines stocked in person. back to print editions

By Lily McCann < Back to Issue 3 Belly bugs: the aliens that live in our gut By Lily McCann 10 September 2022 Edited by Andrew Lim and Zhiyou Low Illustrated by Helena Pantsis Next Figure 1 (1): "Animalcules" The figures above may look exceedingly simple to you. Beautifully drawn, yes, but nothing particularly complicated —mere ovals and lines of black ink. If I told you that the drawings were 350 years old, your interest might be piqued by that fascination we hold for all historical relics. You might wonder what the images are attempting to portray. You would only be more confused, however, were I to describe them to you using the name they were known by to the artist: “animalcules”. (2) These drawings, penned by a Dutch draughtsman in the early 1680s, are the first known depictions of bacteria from inside a human body (2). They were discovered by a man called Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek in a sample taken from between his teeth. Leeuwenhoek had examined “animalcules” in various water samples before turning to saliva, analysing the shape and movements of the little cells beneath his microscope, which he made from hand-crafted glass mounted between plates of brass. It is now known that these “animalcules” are in fact bacteria, and that they are avid colonisers not only of our mouths but every other body surface, too. These single-celled organisms parted ways with animals some 2.7 billion years ago in evolution and could not appear any more alien to ourselves (3). Though simple in structure and function, they are capable of populating the most inhospitable and extraterrestrial of environments. In fact, Deinococcus radiodurans (pictured below) can survive for years in the harsh vacuum of space (4). Figure 2 (5): Deinococcus radiodurans Freaky, right? The evolutionary distance between bacteria and ourselves does not seem to deter them from entering into the most intimate of symbiotic relationships with us. Despite their alien-ness, despite billions of years of divergent evolution, we have not lost the ability to communicate with these distant relatives of ours. In fact, communication with bacteria is a daily and essential part of our lives. The reason we can still chat with these creatures is that they are made up of the same basic “stuff” that we are: genetic material made of sugars, phosphates and nitrogen bases to dictate our functions; proteins to carry out our cellular processes; membranes to hold us together. All these aspects form a common basis for language. Just as human languages consist of orally transmitted units of sounds that can be translated and understood, bacteria can impart signals in the form of particles that can be decoded and acted upon by our own cells. One example of this kind of dialogue is the production of molecules called short chain fatty acids by bacteria that digest plant materials in our gut. These bacteria impart their gratitude to us for supplying them with suitable foods by releasing short chain fatty acids, which in turn tell our gut not to worry, signalling our cells and instructing them to reduce inflammation, build up our gut wall and even help fix our blood pressure. These molecules can also travel to the brain, where they are thought to influence the release of various signals including that of the “feel-good” hormone serotonin. (6) There’s a whole world of dialogue beyond this often referred to as the gut-brain axis of health. Research into the area has revealed that signals produced by gut bacteria are extremely influential in a number of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease. These relationships often work both ways, giving rise to a strange “chicken-and-egg” situation: those who demonstrate symptoms of such conditions are found to carry altered gut bacterial populations, and altering gut bacteria can in turn change symptoms. For example, in a cruel experiment involving the separation of infant monkeys from their mothers, the stress caused by separation changed the distribution of bacteria colonies in the infants’ guts, whilst administering a certain bacteria often imparted to infants by their mothers was found to reverse the symptoms of this stress (7). The way that bacteria can change our very emotions has significant implications for our idea of personhood. What are we, if how we act depends on the alien cells we carry in our digestive tracts? Perhaps we ought to extend our definition of identity to include these little cells that are truly, it seems, a part of how we are—another organ of our body, even. Happily (for those of you who support the philosophy of a ‘growth mindset’), the way our gut influences our minds is subject to manipulation. And we do not need a scientist to isolate and administer a certain bacterial species to us in order to change it; evidence suggests that simply altering what we eat can have a profound influence. Dietary change is known to directly alter bacterial gut colonies, and the change shown to bring about the most harmonious of conversations with our gut is increasing our intake of dietary fibre. Flooding our gut community with plentiful fibre causes a rush of signals from bacteria that promote gut health, mental health and healthy ageing. In contrast, a low fibre diet can promote diabetes, cardiovascular problems and, for pregnant mothers, may compromise the neural functioning of a developing child (8). What does this mean for medicine? Can we harness the billion-year old dialogue between our cells and the aliens that colonise our gut for our own benefit? Can we coax these residents into a mutually beneficial relationship by approaching them in the right tone? These questions are gradually gaining popularity among the scientific community as trials of probiotic administration are explored in the context of treating illnesses from depression to gastrointestinal disorders (9). We are yet to see where such studies will lead us. When the outside world seems increasingly bleak, I find comfort in the fact that within us rumbles on the activity of an intricate and disinterested universe, completely alien to and yet an integral part of ourselves. Like farmers of a garden in times of shortage, we exist in a state of codependency with the world we nurture inside our bodies. If we foster a good relationship with its inhabitants, they can protect us from the afflictions of illness, sadness and madness that threaten our species day by day. References : 1. The Royal Society. Bacteria from Leeuwenhoek's mouth [Internet]. 2022 [cited 17 March 2022]. Available from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/2bf20f9f-28e1-4126-bd7e-f92950899a2b/rstb20140344f03.jpg 2. Lane N. The unseen world: reflections on Leeuwenhoek (1677) ‘Concerning little animals’ | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences [Internet]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2022 [cited 17 April 2022]. Available from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2014.0344 3. Cooper G. The Origin and Evolution of Cells [Internet]. Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 2022 [cited 17 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/#:~:text=The%20eukaryotes%20developed%20at%20least,is%20from%20present%2Dday%20eukaryotes 4. Cox M, Battista J. Deinococcus radiodurans — the consummate survivor. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2005;3(11):882-892. 5. 5. The European Synchroton. Deinococcus radiodurans [Internet]. 2022 [cited 5 May 2022]. Available from: https://www.esrf.fr/UsersAndScience/Experiments/MX/Research_and_Development/Biology/Deinococcus_radiodurans 6. De Angelis M, Piccolo M, Vannini L, Siragusa S, De Giacomo A, Serrazzanetti D et al. Fecal Microbiota and Metabolome of Children with Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e76993. 7. Bailey M, Coe C. Maternal separation disrupts the integrity of the intestinal microflora in infant rhesus monkeys. Developmental Psychobiology. 1999;35(2):146-155. 8. Buffington S, Di Prisco G, Auchtung T, Ajami N, Petrosino J, Costa-Mattioli M. Microbial Reconstitution Reverses Maternal Diet-Induced Social and Synaptic Deficits in Offspring. Cell. 2016;165(7):1762-1775. 9. Kazemi A, Noorbala A, Azam K, Eskandari M, Djafarian K. Effect of probiotic and prebiotic vs placebo on psychological outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder: A randomized clinical trial. Clinical Nutrition. 2019;38(2):522-528. Previous article Next article alien back to

< Back to Issue 9 Enter . . . the Anthropocene? by Rita Fortune 28 October 2025 Illustrated by Zara Burk Edited by Kylie Wang We live in a time where humanity’s impact on the world around us is clearly visible. From the neverending barrage of information about climate change, to extinction and habitat loss, the consequences of our actions are impossible to avoid. There’s no denying that the world around us is changing, but what if there are deeper implications? What if our impact on the planet will be apparent thousands, even millions of years into the future? Have we changed our planet’s system to such an extent that the birth of our species defined a new geological epoch? The geological timescale is how we understand the relative timing of past events. From the advent of life, to mass extinctions, all of it is documented in the rock record. Our geological past is divided into formalised time periods: eons, eras, periods, epochs and ages. These time periods are generally divided by major changes visible in the rock record, such as mass extinctions, major climate shifts, or changes in magnetic polarity, with absolute ages determined by radioactive dating (1). Currently, we are formally sitting in the Holocene Epoch, which began around 11.7 thousand years ago, with the end of the last glacial maximum and beginning of the subsequent warmer interglacial phase (2). However, due to the enormity of impact on earth systems that humanity has had, especially since the dawn of the industrial revolution, some scientists are pushing for the formalisation of a new epoch: the Anthropocene. The concept of the Anthropocene was first officially coined by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2002 (3). Initially, it was used to recognise the exploitation of earth’s resources by humankind, including the emission of greenhouse gases, urbanisation of land, and increase in species extinction rates. Crutzen and Stoermer suggested the beginning of the Anthropocene to be in the late 18th century, as, in the last 200 years, the “global effects of human activities have become clearly noticeable” (3). The concept, at its core, has remained the same since then, but there have been some changes and debate around formal definitions and informal uses of the term. The Anthropocene has been adopted in popular culture, with its broad use encompassing humanity’s interactions with the earth, but there is ongoing debate about its formal use. Furthermore, although the theory traces its origins to earth system science, efforts to formalise the Anthropocene have been multidisciplinary, involving not only stratigraphers and palaeontologists, but also experts from various scientific backgrounds (4). Formalising the Anthropocene as an epoch distinct from the Holocene relies on being able to find stratal evidence in the rock record for where this transition took place (4). There are countless pieces of evidence for our impact on Earth’s systems.Yet, there is still debate around which ones can be used to define the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Working Group identified as potential evidence for the beginning of the Anthropocene: the increase in sedimentation and erosion rates; changes to carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; climate change and increase in sea level, and; biotic changes such as unprecedented spread of species across Earth (4). Many of these impacts will leave permanent evidence in the geological record, indicating our existence long after our civilisations have crumbled. There are many potential ways to define the beginning of the Anthropocene. Crutzen suggested this crucial moment to be the invention of the steam engine, which led to the industrial revolution, often used as a baseline to compare our current climate to (3). However, evidence of industrialisation from this time is really only visible in Europe, with sediments from the Southern Hemisphere showing no change (5). More recently, it has been posited that the detonation of the first atomic bomb in 1945 should be the official marker of the Anthropocene, as it deposited a thin stratal layer of radionuclides, which do not naturally occur in the environment (6). While it’s clear that humans are a major source of change on Earth, some say that it does not necessarily mean we’ve entered a new epoch. Although geological time periods are often delineated based on environmental change, not every environmental change necessitates the creation of a new epoch. There have been past periods of (relatively) rapid climate change that are not associated with new time periods. An example of this is the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). During this time, there was significant global warming, change in habitats, and migration in species. This warm period lasted for approximately 100,000 years, but there were no mass extinctions. Once temperatures returned to normal, ecosystems essentially returned to how they were before the event (7). Geologically speaking, the proposed Anthropocene is a minuscule amount of time. Although the effects are extreme, if we stopped all emissions right now, it is possible that within 5000 years the climate could return to pre-industrial levels (8). Another argument presented by some authors is that the stratigraphic basis for the Anthropocene doesn’t exist yet, and is merely expected to exist in the future. Many structures which have an anthropogenic origin, such as excavation, boreholes and mine dumps, are not yet geological strata. Additionally, in strata that have recorded anthropogenic change, such as speleothems, marshes, lake and ocean floor sediments, the layers representing the Anthropocene would be so thin as to be difficult to distinguish from the underlying Holocene sediments (6). Without the gift of hindsight that has allowed scientists to examine previous epochs, it is difficult to say whether or not the change we currently see will be significant enough on a geological scale to officially move us into a new epoch. There has been suggestion that instead of a new epoch, the Anthropocene could be a Sub-Age, or an Age within the Holocene Epoch (4); acknowledging our profound impact on the earth, but believing that the earth’s system will eventually return to pre-industrial levels. Further complicating the matter, there are suggestions that humans have been altering the earth’s climate since long before the industrial revolution. Evidence shows that a rise in CO2 occurred with the advent of farming by early humans, 7000 years ago. Around the same time, there was also a rise in atmospheric methane, which has been attributed to rice paddies and livestock (9). With the increase in human population happening at this time, there was likewise an increase in land clearance, both to accommodate dwellings and farming. Even though these emissions and land clearing are tiny by today’s standards, they may have been enough to push our climate away from heading into its next glacial period, priming the warmer conditions we experience today. Some arguments have even been made that irreversible impact by humans stretches back even further, to the Pleistocene extinctions of megafauna across multiple continents (10). There is no doubt that humans have had, and are having, a massive impact on the environment. The atmosphere and oceans will take thousands of years to recover from their current level of warming. However, these massive changes do not necessarily mean that we have entered a new epoch. Although it appears there will be ample stratigraphic records of our impacts on this planet, without hindsight, it is difficult to see just how much change we have created. In the context of geological time, humans have been around for a minutely short period. Although what’s happening today might seem dramatic to us, it is possible that millions of years in the future all we will have left behind is a few centimetres of ocean floor sediment. Either way, the Anthropocene as an informal term for our current time period is valuable for acknowledging the consequences of our actions, and a reminder of the permanence of our record. References 1.University of Calgary. Geologic time scale. Energy Education. 2024. Accessed October 21, 2025. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Geologic_time_scale#cite_note-GTS-3 2. Walker M, Johnsen S, Rasmussen SO, Popp T, Steffensen JP, Gibbard P, et al. Formal definition and dating of the GSSP (Global Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the Greenland NGRIP ice core, and selected auxiliary records. J. Quaternary Sci. 2009;24(1):3–17. doi: 10.1002/jqs.1227 3. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF. The ‘Anthropocene’ (2000) [Internet]. Benner S, Lax G, Crutzen PJ, Pöschl U, Lelieveld J, Brauch HG, editors. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. 3 p. (Paul J. Crutzen and the Anthropocene: A New Epoch in Earth’s History). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82202-6_2 4. Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Summerhayes CP, Wolfe AP, Barnosky AD, Cearreta A, et al. The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of evidence and interim recommendations. Anthropocene. 2017;19:55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ancene.2017.09.001 5. Pare S. Nuclear bombs set off new geological epoch in the 1950s, scientists say. Live Science. 2023. Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/nuclear-bombs-set-off-new-geological-epoch-in-the-1950s-scientists-say 6. Finney S, Edwards L. The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement? GSA Today. 2016;26:4–10. doi: 10.1130/GSATG270A.1 7. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Britannica. 2023. Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/science/Paleocene-Eocene-Thermal-Maximum 8. The Royal Society. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago? The Royal Society. 2020. Accessed October 21, 2025. https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/ 9. Ruddiman WF, He F, Vavrus SJ, Kutzbach JE. The early anthropogenic hypothesis: A review. Quaternary Science Reviews. 2020;240:106386. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106386 10. Doughty CE, Wolf A, Field CB. Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human-induced global warming? Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010;37(15). doi:10.1029/2010GL043985 Previous article Next article Entwined back to

< Back to Issue 9 It’s Dangerous to Go Alone by Julia Lockerd 28 October 2025 Illustrated by Jason Chien Edited by Luci Ackland It’s safe to say that as a species, we have done a fair bit of thinking over the years. From microbes to mammals, to mapping the stars, we have always searched for ways to make meaning of the world and its many mysteries. Every day, the amount of knowledge possessed grows, building on the ideas we learn from each other. But what is knowledge without someone to know it? And how can we build a reliable foundation upon which to amass this knowledge? Many modern philosophers take a ‘what’s mine is mine’ approach to epistemology – the development of knowledge – with ideas like trust and collaboration altogether excluded from the recipe for ‘good science’ (1). Philosopher John Locke suggests that an ‘autonomous knower’ (2) – that’s you! – should only accept input from someone existing outside the self if she already possesses empirical evidence confirming that input is true (3). That is to say, don’t believe anything you read online, or in a book, or hear from your friend, or your professor alone. Basically, don’t believe the sky is blue unless you can look outside and see it for yourself. This seems like a hard way to live and makes it nearly impossible to make any headway on scientific advancement. If there is truly no way to build on previous knowledge, how do we measure anything at all? When considering scientific disciplines, the (presumably brooding) ‘autonomous knower’ must give up her lone wolf life and finally make some friends. This is not only for her emotional benefit, but also because science simply cannot occur without it. Epstein (2006) argues that the three main drivers of scientific collaboration are as follows: 1. The topic demands it. This applies to fields such as cognitive psychology, where the topic is an amalgam of different specialisations. 2. To gain a new perspective. Researchers interviewed by Epstein highlighted how collaboration helps them gain new approaches and techniques. 3. To provide additional knowledge. Although it’s all well and good to assert you should only believe what you can prove yourself (looking at you, Locke), collaboration is crucial to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ every time you want to learn something new (4). This last reason, by its very nature, proves that, despite my best efforts, no one person can possess the whole of human understanding by herself. Thus, the ‘many-headed knower’ makes her appearance on stage. This version of the knower exists as an alternative to Locke’s Autonomous Knower, where multiple individuals can share fragments of a greater epistemic idea. Without it, whole scientific disciplines can be reasoned away as no single person possesses the evidence to prove the scientific idea exists (2). For example, many medical devices could not be realised without input from both clinicians and engineers. If knowledge cannot be shared between these two groups, MedTech might cease to exist at all. With the multiheaded knower by your side, you can now solve scientific conundrums with the power of friendship (or, begrudging teamwork if it’s 11.59pm and you’re still working on that group project due at 12.00am). To fully grasp how systems of collaboration function, we need to investigate the interpersonal relationships that make up the heads of the knower. Generally, these relationships are of two kinds: Moral and Epistemic trust. Returning to our old friend, the multi-headed knower, epistemic trust allows multiple heads to exist, while moral trust in social bonds between researchers keeps her many heads attached. Epistemic trust involves the acceptance of knowledge provided by an external source as true. While trustworthiness often evokes a sense of superior moral value, epistemic trust has far more to do with the perceived competency of the individual providing information. Wagenknecht calls these relationships ‘Epistemic Dependence’ (5). The word dependence here is interesting, as it reveals a certain vulnerability in the relationship between researchers. Wagenknecht likens it to someone asking for directions in a foreign city. Simply, it is a blind trust that one's partner knows the way to go and is capable of leading them there. But where does this trust come from? If trust were truly blind, I could justify my lab results with a simple ‘Trust me bro,’ and my supervisor would go ‘Fantastic. Nobel prize for you.’ Unfortunately, this isn’t how it works, and my career trajectory will (probably) look a little more complicated. It is instead proposed that there are ‘shades of trust and distrust’ that can be influenced by external modifiers, such as accurate conduct of experiments, analysis of results, and epistemic authority. In this model, trust is a dynamic concept that builds or deteriorates between trustees over a chain of interactions (5). If a series of interactions is positive and trust is progressively built up, at some point, an asymptotic limit of trust will be reached. However, the level of epistemic trust between any two researchers is high but never complete, even when there is no reason to doubt the other's testimony. This is good news for Locke, as there still might be a space in which his autonomous knower can exist in happy isolation. Moral trust, the far less popular younger brother of Epistemic trust, is the scrappy underdog in the world of scientific relationships. It is argued that morality shouldn’t even get a seat at the big kids' table, as there is no place for it in scientific collaboration (2). This raises the ever-devious question: why not lie? A little fudge of the numbers could make you the next Elizabeth Holmes, minus the jail time and general disgrace (6). To find an answer, I turn to T.M. Scanlon’s ‘What We Owe Each Other’ (7). Specifically, in chapter five, he discusses the ever-sexy ‘structure of moral contractualism’. Scanlon explores a set of moral requirements that must be accepted or rejected based on the concern we hold for another's well-being, their own personal values, and perspective. Simply, academic falsification is rare because one researcher owes it to another to give a truthful testimony. Returning to the analogy of being lost in a foreign city, what keeps the locals from sending a tourist in the wrong direction out of laziness or fun? I argue that it is the acceptance of a moral principle out of concern for another person's well-being. Immanuel Kant believed lying was always wrong, in every situation (a stance I’m sure made him suuuuuuuuper fun to be around) (8). If this is true, the structure of scientific collaboration must surely crumble in the absence of moral trust (9). Interestingly, Scanlon discusses the place of ‘impersonal values’ in the development of moral code. This relates to reasons for adherence to a moral code that does not pertain to the well-being or status of any one individual. He uses the preservation of the Grand Canyon as an example. We do not deface the Grand Canyon because it would harm any particular group of people, and we cannot argue that this principle is 'what we owe to others', as the canyon doesn't have any personal feelings (that we know of). Instead, only the value we have tied to the land itself stops us from turning it into the biggest lazy river in the world (7). In the context of research, not only do we owe it to each other to adhere to truthfulness, but we also owe it to science as a concept. Essentially, if you’re not doing science with a pure and truthful heart, you’re not doing science at all. Someone needs to tell Dr. Evil about this. As scientific communities have relied more and more on each other to produce collaborative results, science as a whole has become somewhat of a team sport. I argue that while epistemic and moral are two different forms of trust – or even the same form of trust applied to different issues – they both contribute to the social basis of scientific collaboration. Trust in itself is a purely social concept; just as knowledge cannot exist without a 'knower', trust cannot exist without two people, between whom that trust can exist. Therefore, whether you subscribe to the idea that moral trust has any place in scientific collaboration, it is indisputable that there is a social level to any interaction between researchers. This is to say nothing about the more 'frivolous' aspects of collaboration in which personal opinions, egos, and attitudes have been anecdotally proven to affect the quality of collaborative work. Science, at its core, is about understanding. It makes sense that we can’t even get off the ground if we don't start by understanding each other. References 1. J. Locke. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. www.gutenberg.org , 1689. Available: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/10615-h/10615-h.htm 2. J. Hardwig. The Role of Trust in Knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy . 1991;88(12):693. doi: 10.2307/2027007 3. R. W. Grant. John Locke on Custom’s Power and Reason’s Authority. The Review of Politics. 2012;74(4) 607–629.doi: 10.2307/23355688. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23355688 4. S. Epstein. Making Interdisciplinary Collaboration Work. Available: https://www.cs.hunter.cuny.edu/~epstein/papers/collaboration.pdf . [Accessed: Mar. 29, 2024] 5. S. Wagenknecht. Facing the Incompleteness of Epistemic Trust: Managing Dependence in Scientific Practice. Social Epistemology . 2014;29(2):160–184. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2013.794872 6. E. Fricker. Testimony and Epistemic Autonomy. The Epistemology of Testimony . 2006:225–245. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276011.003.0011 7. T. M. Scanlon. What We Owe to Each Other. 1998. Available: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/file/feeds/PDF/9780674248953_sample.pdf 8. T. L. Carson. Kant and the Absolute Prohibition against Lying. Lying and Deception . 2010:67–87. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577415.003.0004 9. Immanuel Kant. An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? by Immanuel Kant 1784. Marxists.org , 1798. Available: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/enlightenment.htm Previous article Next article Entwined back to

< Back to Issue 10 Are Truths Possible Under AI? by Vanessa Cheng 2 June 2026 Illustrated by Saraf Ishmam Edited by Rita Fortune In the era of artificial intelligence (AI), humans are capable of generating wonders within seconds. Yet, isn’t it also destroying the sense of human intuition and authenticity that we are born with? The development of AI dates back to the pre-20th century when Jonathan Swift’s novel “Gulliver’s Travels” initially introduced the idea of an engine — a mechanical system used to assist the academics to generate new ideas. Throughout the 2000s, scientists have been continuously inventing “generations” of AI and discovering its applications. For instance, in 2000, MIT scientist Cynthia Breazeal invented a robot that interacts with humans, capable of reading emotional cues. In 2009, scientists at Northwestern University developed “Stats Monkey”, an engine capable of generating sports news stories without human intervention. Finally, throughout 2021 to 2023, OpenAI’s ChatGPT model DALL-E was introduced to society (1). It changed how we interpret information, how we communicate, and how we seek knowledge. Furthermore, the development of DALL-E 2 and 3 enabled us to generate visual content without traditional graphic skills. These models sparked debate surrounding ethics within the fields of politics and entertainment. On January 22, 2026, The White House posted a digitally altered photo of a woman arrested at the ICE protest, with her facial features appearing hysterical, sparking intense audience emotions (2). AI is no longer a tool, but rather a weapon with endless possibilities. The development of AI has the ability to fundamentally alter how we interact with reality. It changes how we understand knowledge and understand the world. New AI models, such as DALL-E 3, can generate hyperrealistic images, human-like texts, and even synthetic voices. Thus, the ways we can traditionally look for deception, such as hearing, seeing, and reading could no longer be a valid way of helping us understand the world. When we see something, we tend to believe that it exists; when we hear something, we assume that the voice is authentic. A photo is a proof of a scene, and our voice is our identity. However, AI disrupts this ancient relationship between how humans perceive information and reality. In fact, in Essay Concerning Human Understanding published in 1689 by the infamous philosopher John Locke, he pointed out that individuals typically understand reality through what they see and perceive, and that human knowledge originates from sensory experience (3). Our sensory experience becomes the foundation of truth itself. However, AI has disrupted this centuries old assumption. In a world where even emotions can be artificially generated, sensory perception does not guarantee authenticity. In his first text The Phenomenology of Perception , published in 1945, French philosopher Maurice Markeau-Ponty argues that human perception is our primary way of experiencing reality (4). However, with AI, traditional philosophical claims are threatened. In fact, in 2025, The New Yorker pointed out that AI models such as ChatGPT are becoming increasingly accurate in generating preferred text responses based on predictions of the user’s preference (5). Additionally, in some scientific fields, large language models predict patterns in brain activity. If such human things as thoughts, choices, and the very activity in our brains can be so easily manipulated by AI, we may have much less autonomy than we imagined. Our perceptions of reality are increasingly altered by these systems which we have created. The collapse of truth and our ability to trust our own sentences is leading to the collapse of humanity's free will. This dramatic change in how humans think and behave sparks further discussion on how we should view the ethics of AI. According to the Harvard Division of Continuing Education, AI systems raise significant ethical concerns regarding privacy, transparency, and accountability (6). Algorithms may inherit political biases and social inequalities within the training data scientists “feed” to the model. The development of deepfake images and synthetic voices not only creates ethical concerns surrounding misinformation, but also the erosion of social trust. The article also highlights the importance of “transparency and explainability”. Without transparency, AI risks being a “black-box” system in which “responses” that affect how humans live and make decisions are made through processes that cannot be fully explained by professionals (6). During the US-Iran War, AI has again been used as a weapon to manipulate public opinion and emotions. AI was used to generate videos and images of the Iran War that attracted millions of views, and these were used to make misleading claims about the conflict. For instance, BBC detected that a video of missiles striking the city of Tel Aviv in Israel, with sounds of explosions, was AI-generated (7). Timothy Graham, a digital media expert at the Queensland University of Technology, pointed out that “the scale [of AI generated videos] is truly alarming and this war has made it impossible to ignore now” (7). Mahsa Alimardani, a researcher specialising in Iran at the Oxford Internet Institute, also claimed that “fake videos like these have a detrimental impact on people's trust in the verified information they see online and make it much harder to document real evidence” (7). Moreover, AI doesn’t stop with just misleading humans in their daily life. The increasingly military adoption of the use of AI is concerning. On the morning of 28th February 2026, American army forces struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, a girls elementary school in southern Iran, and killed between 175 to 180 people, with most of them girls aged between 7 to 12 years old. What is the most shocking point is that the American forces blame this strike on a decision made by Claude, a chatbot by Anthropic, which selected the school as a target. In fact, as early as 2024, the US Department of War already outlined how the American forces have been adopting the AI-powered Maven Smart System to help soldiers identify and strike military targets (8, 9, 10). While supporters argue that such systems could improve efficiency, critics warn that delegating life-and-death decisions of hundreds of people should not be risked through allowing algorithms to make such decisions. The growing militarisation of AI also raises other ethical issues, such as who should take responsibility for such an action – the programmer, the commander, or AI? Ultimately, the danger of AI lies not only in its potential to “replace human brains”, but also in its ability to fabricate truth, challenging and reshaping centuries of respected philosophical beliefs. AI’s capacity to distance humans from taking moral responsibilities for their actions is also extremely concerning. Now, can you still believe your eyes and ears? What is the truth? Is truth even possible? References IBM. The History of Artificial Intelligence . IBM Think. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/history-of-artificial-intelligence The Guardian. First Thing: White House posts digitally altered image of woman arrested after ICE protest . The Guardian. 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/23/first-thing-white-house-posts-digitally-altered-image-arrested-woman-ice-protest Locke J. John Locke . In: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://iep.utm.edu/locke-kn/ Merleau-Ponty M. The Phenomenology of Perception . In: EBSCO Research Starters . https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/phenomenology-perception-maurice-merleau-ponty Somers J. The Case That A.I. Is Thinking . The New Yorker. 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/11/10/the-case-that-ai-is-thinking ( newyorker.com ) Lizzie S. Harvard Division of Continuing Education. Ethics in AI: Why It Matters . Harvard Professional & Executive Development. 2026. https://professional.dce.harvard.edu/blog/ethics-in-ai-why-it-matters/ ( professional.dce.harvard.edu ) BBC News. AI-generated Iran war videos surge as creators use new tech to cash in . BBC News. 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg8wvz427vo Amaral N. The Iran war highlights the creeping use of AI in warfare . Chatham House. 2026. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/03/iran-war-highlights-creeping-use-ai-warfare Baker KT. AI got the blame for the Iran school bombing. The truth is far more worrying . The Guardian. 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blame-for-the-iran-school-bombing-the-truth-is-far-more-worrying The Week. Could the Iran war pop the AI bubble? The Week. 2026. https://theweek.com/world-news/iran-war-ai-artificial-intelligence-bubble-collapse Previous article back to Fact & Fiction Next article