How much we just don’t know

September 2, 2006

Scientists sometimes say that the more we know, the more questions there are to answer.  Not only do advances in sciences produce new questions, such as working and workable theories in quantum mechanics in physics — there is also a vast trove of stuff to know in other areas.

For example, as humans more carefully explore Earth, we keep finding species previously unknown.  We call them “new” species, but of course, they are not new.  They are living populations which have simply escaped the notice of humans, or of humans who publish in science magazines. 

I found this account of new monkey species at  . . .free your imagination, a blog dedicated to such esoteric and up-to-date knowledge.   (Found it through WordPress’s “tag surfing” feature.)

38 primate species have been described since 1990, and there are at least 20 more, known, but not yet described. This should excite kids who want to be scientific explorers.

And, true to form, anti-conservationists will point to this fact of “new” species, and argue that we have no need for the Endangered Species Act.  Just watch.

What else do we not know?

two primates 

Drawings and caption from National Geographic:  Two new primates, Callicebus stephennashi (above) and C. bernhardi (below), were recently discovered in the Amazon.

Sketches courtesy of Stephen Nash/Conservation International


SLC Mayor Rocky Anderson rebuts Bush

September 1, 2006

One of the more interesting rebuttals to the remarks of President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was made by Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson.  It may be an internet flash-in-the-pan, but you should read it, here.  And read about it here.

Tip o’ the old scrub brush to Dr. David Raskin and Marga Raskin.


History repeating: Chamberlain, or Churchill?

August 31, 2006

Santayana’s warning to the ill-educated rests, sometimes uneasily, at the opening of this blog — a warning to get history, and get history right.

Presidents in sticky situations have occasionally suggested their domestic critics were less than patriotic.  Some claim the current administration has made this a standard claim against almost all criticism of foreign policy.  In speeches to the American Legion meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, both Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President George Bush criticized their critics.  (Here’s the transcript of Rumsfeld’s remarks, from Stars & Stripes; here is the transcript of Bush’s remarks from Salt Lake City’s Deseret News.)

Here are Rumsfeld’s words that sent so many to their history books; Rumsfeld said:

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else’s problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator’s reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today — another enemy, a different kind of enemy — has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons.

(Someone has already wondered whether Rumsfeld got the quote right, and to what senator it might be blamed; Idaho’s Sen. William Borah is the likely candidate, according to The American Prospect.)

Rumsfeld’s example should get your blood heated up, if not boiling.  Problem is, according to Keith Olberman, part of the example should cut against Rumsfeld:  It was Neville Chamberlain’s government who criticized Winston Churchill as being in error.  Had the government only listened to the dissenters, many lives might have been saved, the war shortened, etc., etc.  Olberman’s opinion is worth reading through to the end, and it’s available at Crooks and Liars.

Sometimes it’s necessary to know more than the history; it’s necessary to know literature, too.  “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” wrote Sir Walter Scott.

Tip o’ the old scrub brush to Pharyngula.


Burying Brown and the Board of Education, too

August 30, 2006

WordPress now alerts bloggers to other blog posts with similar content.  Sometimes it pulls one out of the past, and sometimes the posts pulled up make one shudder.

Reports last April said Nebraska’s unicameral legislature passed a law that will effectively resegregate Omaha’s school system.  Appletree has the story here.  How did it turn out?  I haven’t found much other news on it.

The news and the figures reported are troubling, regardless the final outcome (and I suspect the motion did not proceed exactly as the version reported).  Some of us have long suspected that the anti-education drive, manifested in proposals for charter schools, and especially for vouchers, is simply a masked version of segregation, a way to deprive people of color and people in poverty of a chance for a good education. 

One almost wishes Ronald Reagan were still alive to remind these people that, while a rising tide raises all boats, punching holes in the bottom of the boats sinks them, and in a drought, the entire lake goes dry.  The best ideals of the United States have been expressed in the drive for almost-free, universally-available primary and secondary education, for nearly 200 years.  The U.S. education system remains the model the rest of the world strives to copy.  Getting Americans to commit to keeping that system, and keeping it up to date in a world gone flat (see Tom Friedman) is an important political task for the next quarter-century.

Every kid deserves a chance to achieve as much as she or he can.  We need to focus more on making that happen, for all kids.


Misquoting Lincoln to support Bush

August 26, 2006

Carpus at Aspirations of a Post Doc fisks a quote making the rounds that has Abraham Lincoln claiming dissent is close to treason.  Go read his post.  Turns out the quote was manufactured, partly in error, in 2003.  Carpus points to the FactCheck.org report for a source. 

Lincoln never said it.  Lincoln did little to stifle dissent.

In fact, Lincoln’s management style as president was based on bringing people with dissenting views into his cabinet.  Doris Kearns Goodwin’s latest book, Team of Rivals, strongly suggests that forging good policies from great dissent was a particular genius of Lincoln.

George W. could learn a lot from Abe, Carpus concludes — with astounding understatement.


Colorado flag flap update

August 26, 2006

Update, August 28:  Interesting discussion at The Education Wonks.

The 7th grade world geography teacher in Lakewood, Colorado, Eric Hamlin, reached a compromise agreement with the school district over the display of foreign flags in his classroom, according to a couple of reports I heard last night after I posted on the controversy.  The World, a co-production of BBC, Public Radio International and WGBH in Boston, carried a thorough report, in audio.

But then he decided to resign from the school anyway, according to Matthew Rothschild at the online ProgressiveDenver Post columnist Jim Spencer added a few details, including the very temporary way the flags were mounted (the Colorado law bans “permanent” displays).  Lots of comments, including the text of the law, at Reason.com’s Hit and Run. (I have the complete text of the law below the fold.)

It would be difficult to write parody like this. Read the rest of this entry »


. . . in which I defend the judiciary against barbaric assault

August 14, 2006

I’ll make this quick (back to the grindstone, you know).

In my immediately previous post I make a minor case that advocacy of intelligent design is the less preferable alternative to understanding evolution, for moral reasons. Advocacy of intelligent design has so farproven incapable of making a case in a straightforward and honest fashion. All cases for intelligent design rest in large part, or completely, in distortions of science and history.  What originall caught my eye and my ire was the mischaracterization of the recent decision in the Pennsylvania intelligent design case. Read the rest of this entry »


The moral imperative against intelligent design

August 14, 2006

I’m straying only a bit off topic, and only by certain legalistic interpretations. History folks, bear with me.

My complaint about what is called “intelligent design” in biology is the same complaint I have against people who wish to crown Millard Fillmore as a great light for bringing plumbing to the White House over the complaints of health officials — that is, my complaint against those who push H. L. Mencken’s hoax over the facts.

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost listed at great lengths his list of reasons that arguing for science actually promotes intelligent design instead (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). This blog’s response was in two parts, one and two. Other people offered other rebuttals, including notably, P. Z. Myers at Pharyngula, a very good blog that features the hard science of biology and especially evolution.

Joe provided a first affirmative rebuttal here. This post is my reply, on the single point of whether it’s fair to say creationists, IDists, or others who twist the facts and research, are “dishonest.”

The text is below the fold; I left it in remarks at Evangelical Outpost. I have one other observation I’ll make quickly in the next post.

Enjoy, and chime in with your own remarks (I’m headed back to the grindstone). Read the rest of this entry »


Preserving history, for veterans

August 13, 2006

Subsunk over at Blackfive has a question he asks soldiers returning from Iraq. It’s a great question, one that should be asked of every returning soldier.

This is a reminder that history is not just what the academic historians say it is. History is the story of the people who were there, recorded by anyone. You can do your bit for history, too. Go read Blackfive’s post, and think seriously about asking others a similar question. Then record and publish the answer.

We know a lot more about Thomas Jefferson’s views on matters than George Washington, but not because reporters and historians covered Jefferson better. Jefferson wrote it all down, and preserved it, for future generations. Even much of the embarrassing stuff. Washington was much more reserved, often recording in his diary only the weather for the day.

Such recording is, ultimately, the beginning of real civilization. We have a duty to make records to preserve our own memories, and to provide lights for those who follow us — either lights on the path, or lighthouses warning of the rocks.

Blackfive’s question: “What did you do over there that you are proudest of?”


God we trust, to Girard we owe

August 12, 2006

Steel engraving of Stephen Girard, with his signature, by Alonzo Chappel,

Steel engraving of Stephen Girard, the man who personally saved the United States, with his signature, by Alonzo Chappel,”National Portrait Gallery of Eminent Americans from original full length portraits by Alonzo Chappel” Vol I, New York: Johnson, Fry & Co. 1862 “The Cooper Collections” via Wikipedia

Irony strikes the White House.

I mean, you can’t really make stuff like this up.

To be sure, the humor is quite Santayanaesque — if you don’t know the history, you won’t see the irony.

President Bush issued a proclamation noting the 50th anniversary of one of our national mottoes, “In God We Trust.” No big deal, these presidential proclamations. Note the occasion, say it’s worth commemorating, urge citizens to commemorate it “appropriately.”

Somebody in the White House communications commissariat decided to dress it up a little, add some history — you know, pad the proclamation to please the partisan pundits. What better thing to mention than, say, the “Star-Spangled Banner,” our national anthem, which has a line in it, “in God is our trust?” Read the rest of this entry »


Twisting recent history (creationism), 2

August 11, 2006

RECAP: It’s only nine months since Judge John Jones’ extremely well-reasoned and carefully-written decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, which declared unconstitutional the efforts by the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, to sneak creationism into their schools’ biology curriculum. But the revisionists are out in force. On August 8, Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost posted “10 ways Darwinists help intelligent design,” in extreme length.

Other people were bothered by the post, too. I see that Matt over at Pooflingers fisked the thing, too. I haven’t read his post yet — his is no doubt more incisive than what I’ve written below. But can there be too much taking to task those who would sacrifice our children’s education on a cross of hooey?

You can go read the entire thing at Evangelical Outpost if you want. I’ll post the list of ten, with corrections. History revisionism is an ugly thing, especially when the court decision is still fresh, available and an easy and educational read, and especially on things scientific, where one’s errors may be easier to spot. In keeping with the ethical standards ofthisblog, to expose hoaxes about bathtubs wherever they may appear, here goes;

Part 2: Joe Carter posted his list of ten things scientists do wrong; Part 1 covered the first five, here are numbers 6 through 10:

#6 By invoking design in non-design explanations. Anyone who wonders why so many people find intelligent design explanations plausible need only to listen to scientific community discuss the evolutionary process. Scientists have a complete inability to talk about and explain processes like natural selection without using the terms, analogies, and metaphors of design and teleology.

Take, for instance, the recent finding that leads researchers to believe they have found a second code in DNA in addition to the genetic code. On The New York Times science page we find an explanation by Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute in Israel:

“A curious feature of the code is that it is redundant, meaning that a given amino acid can be defined by any of several different triplets. Biologists have long speculated that the redundancy may have been designed so as to coexist with some other kind of code, and this, Dr. Segal said, could be the nucleosome code.” [emphasis added]

No! No! No! Scientists note the appearance of design, but scientists go the extra mile; they go on to look for natural explanations for such appearances. Most often they have found a perfectly natural explanation that involves fitness for survival, sexual selection, or chemical and physical necessity, and they have found no intervention outside the critters’ struggle for survival. Read the rest of this entry »


Twisting recent history (creationism), 1

August 10, 2006

It’s only nine months since Judge John Jones’ extremely well-reasoned and carefully-written decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, which declared unconstitutional the efforts by the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, to sneak creationism into their schools’ biology curriculum. But the revisionists are out in force. On August 8, Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost posted “10 ways Darwinists help intelligent design,” in extreme length.

Other people were bothered by the post, too. I see that Matt over at Pooflingers fisked the thing, too. I haven’t read his post yet — his is no doubt more incisive than what I’ve written below. But can there be too much taking to task those who would sacrifice our children’s education on a cross of hooey? Read the rest of this entry »


Bad history clouds our future

August 7, 2006

Wholly apart from the damaging effects of belief in things that are not accurate, how much should we worry that people really get bad history?

From the Associated Press on August 6, via Editor & Publisher:

NEW YORK Do you believe in Iraqi “WMD”? Did Saddam Hussein’s government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become “independent of reality” in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull. [emphasis added by this blog – E.D.]
The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

This is a case where “enduring faith” can lead to bad policy, or disastrous policy.

The article notes that a recent news story could have skewed the poll. A report requested by two Republicans, a senator and a representative, both running for re-election, detailed the Pentagon’s information about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) found in Iraq. There were 500 pieces catalogued, very old, left over from Gulf War I in the early 1990s. There was no evidence of new weapons, nor of a program to make new weapons such as that used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Read the rest of this entry »


. . . and it will trickle down to education

August 4, 2006

Heard this one before?

“Income-tax cut urged, Huntsman says it would benefit schools, but educators are wary,” is a headline in this morning’s Deseret Morning News in Salt Lake City.

Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr., wants a cut in the state income tax. Education funding shrank a great deal as a priority in Utah in the past decade, and educators want to make up lost ground — much of the state income tax goes to support education. Read the rest of this entry »


Applied history

July 31, 2006

Here’s a profession where history reading is a critical skill:

Robert Young writes down the measurements recorded by state-of-the-art digital equipment held by survey party chief Barry Brown.

Photo by J. G. Domke, special to Ft. Worth Star-Telegram.

Caption: Robert Young writes down the measurements recorded by state-of-the-art digital equipment held by survey party chief Barry Brown.

See excerpts of the story, about George Washington’s profession, below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »