Hmmmm. May have to use this to start out the history classes next year, on the topic of “How do we know what we know?”
Michael Shermer explains the tools we use to detect baloney. Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine; here he speaks in a video produced by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, via Boing! Boing!:
1 Comment | 
Accuracy, Debunking, History, Reason, Science | Tagged: Evidence, History, How do we know what we know, Reason, Science, Skepticism | 
Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Many Americans took great pleasure in Barack Obama’s noting the importance of science, and the importance of heeding science, in his inaugural address.
In April he attended an annual meeting of the poobahs at the National Academy of Sciences, one of the world’s premiere science organizations and the backbone and guts of the science movement that drove American prosperity and security in the 20th century. Historians will want to note especially the history President Obama recounted in the first few minutes of the speech.
Can we use video for DBQs in AP courses yet? Here’s one to use.
Leave a Comment » | History, Politics, President Obama, Presidents, Science | Tagged: History, National Academy of Sciences, Politics, President Obama, Reason, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
John Mashey occasionally graces these pages with his comments — a cool, reasoned head on hot issues like global warming/global climate change, despite his history in computers or maybe because of it (which would put the lie to the idea that computer programming explains why so many computer programmers are wacky intelligent design advocates).
Mashey offered a comment over at RealClimate on a post about hoaxer and science parodist Christopher Monckton — a comment you ought to read if you think about Texas ever, and especially if you like the place. It’s comment #413 on that Gigantor blog.
Monckton wrote a letter to the New York Times and attached to it a graph. The graph, it turns out, probably would need to be classified in the fiction section of a library or book store, were it a book. Much discussion occurs, absent any appearance by Monckton himself who does not defend his graphs by pointing to sources that might back what his graphs say, usually.
In short, the post and the extensive comments shed light on the problems of veracity which plague so many who deny either that warming is occurring, or that air pollution from humans might have anything to do with it, or that humans might actually be able to do anything to mitigate the changes or the damage, or that humans ought to act on the topic at all.
So I’ve stolen Mashey’s comment lock, stock and barrel, to give it a little more needed highlight.
If you follow environmental issues much, you probably know Count Christopher Monckton as a man full of braggadocio and bad information on climate. He is known to have worked hard to hoodwink the U.S. Congress with his claims of expertise and policy legitimacy, claiming to be a member of the House of Lords though he is not (some climate change deniers in Congress appear to have fallen for the tale). He pops up at denialist conferences, accuses scientists of peddling false information, and he is a shameless self-promoter.
After much discussion, Mashey turned his attention to claims that Texans don’t know better than Monckton, and other things; Mashey notes that denialists cite Monckton’s performance at a conservative political show in Texas, instead having paid attention to real climate scientists who were meeting just up the road, for free:
AGW’s impact depends on where you live
OR
Texas is Not Scotland, even when a Scottish peer visits1) SCOTLAND
Viscount Monckton lives in the highlands of Scotland (Carie, Rannoch, 57degN, about the same as Juneau, AK, but warmer from Gulf Stream.)a) SEA LEVEL, STORMS
Most of Scotland (esp the highlands) is well above sea level, and in any case, from Post-Glacial Rebound, it’s going up. [Not true of Southern England.]b) PRECIPITATION
Scotland gets lots of regular precipitation. From that, he likely gets ~1690mm or more rainfall/year, noticeably more than Seattle or Vancouver.Scotland has complex, variable weather systems, with more rain in West than in East, but has frequent precipitation all year.
c) TEMPERATURE
Scotland’s climate would likely be better with substantial warming. See UK Met Office on Scotland, which one might compare with NASA GISS Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change. Scotland average maximum temperatures are 18-19C in the summer, i.e., in most places it might occasionally get up to 70F, although of course it varies by geography. +3C is no big deal. The record maximum was 32.9C (91F), set in 2003. Maybe there is yet a good future for air-conditioning/cooling vendors.If one does a simple linear regression on both sets of annual data, one finds that SLOPE(Scotland) = .0071C/year, SLOPE(world) = .0057C/year, i.e., Scotland is warming slightly faster than the world as a whole.
d) AGRICULTURE
The combination of b) and c) is, most likely *good* for agriculture in Scotland. There is plenty of rain, and higher temperatures mean less snow and a longer growing season. Great!In addition, the British geoscientist/vineyard archaeologist Richard Selley thinks that while it may be too hot for good vineyards in Southern England by 2080, it will be fine for some areas of Scotland.
Future Loch Ness Vineyard: great!e) OIL+GAS, ENERGY
Fossil fuel production (North Sea oil&gas) is very important to the Scotland economy. Wikipedia claims oil-related employment is 100,000 (out of total population of about 5M).Scotland has not always been ecstatic to be part of the UK.
2) TEXAS
The Viscount Monckton spoke for Young Conservatives of Texas, April 28 @ Texas A&M, which of course has a credible Atmospheric Sciences Department. Of course, many of them were unable to hear the Viscount because they were in Austin at CLIMATE CHANGE Impacts on TEXAS WATER, whose proceedings are online. See especially Gerald North on Global Warming and TX Water.Monckton delivered his message: “no worries, no problems” which might well fit Scotland just fine, at least through his normal life expectancy.
The message was delivered to Texans typically in their 20s, many of whom would expect to see 2060 or 2070, and whose future children, and certainly grandchildren, might well see 2100.
Texas is rather different from Scotland, although with one similarity (oil+gas).
a) SEA LEVEL, STORMS
Texas has a long, low coastline in major hurricane territory.
Brownsville, TX to Port Arthur is a 450-mile drive, with coastal towns like Corpus Christi, Galveston, and Port Arthur listed at 7 feet elevations. The center of Houston is higher, but some the TX coast has subsidence issues, not PGR helping it rise. The Houston Ship Canal and massive amounts of infrastructure are very near sea level. More people live in the Houston metropolitan area + rest of the TX coast than in all of Scotland.Of course, while North Sea storms can be serious, they are not hurricanes. IF it turns out that the intensity distribution of hurricanes shifts higher, it’s not good, since in the short term (but likely not the long term), storm surge is worse than sea level rise.
Hurricane Rita (2005) and Hurricane Ike (2008) both did serious damage, but in some sense, both “missed” Houston. (Rita turned North, and hit as a Category 3; Ike was down to Category 2 before hitting Galveston).
Scotland: no problem
TX: problems alreadyb) RAINFALL
Texas is very complex meteorologically, and of course, it’s big, but as seen in the conference mentioned above (start with North’s presentation), one might say:– The Western and Southern parts may well share in the Hadley-Expansion-induced loss of rain, i.e., longer and stronger droughts, in common with NM, AZ, and Southern CA. Many towns are dependent on water in rivers that come from the center of the state, like the Brazos.
– The NorthEast part will likely get more rain. [North’s comment about I35 versus I45 indicates uncertainty in the models.]
– Rain is likely to be more intense when it happens, but droughts will be more difficult.
Extreme weather in TX already causes high insurance costs, here, or here.
Scotland: no problem
Texas: problems.c) TEMPERATURE
Texas A&M is ~31degN, rather nearer the Equator than 57degN.
Wikipedia has a temperature chart. It is rather warmer in TX, but is also more given to extremes.Scotland: +3C would be dandy,
Texas: +3C not so dandy.d) AGRICULTURE
Between b) and c), less water in dry places, more water in wet places, more variations in water, and higher temperatures (hence worse evaporation/precipitation difference) are not good news for TX agriculture, or so says Bruce McCarl, Professor of Agricultural Economics at TAMU.For audiences unfamiliar with Texas A&M, the “A” originally stood for Agriculture, and people are called Aggies. One might assume that agricultural research is valued.
Politically, “Aggie-land” would not be considered a hotspot of hyper-liberal folks prone to becoming climate “alarmists”.Scotland: warmer, great! Wine!
Texas: serious stress.d) OIL+GAS, ENERGY
Here, there is more similarity: fossil fuels are economically important.On the other hand, Scotland was settled long before the use of petroleum, and while places like the highlands are very sparse, cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow are relatively dense, and many villages are quite walkable. Warmer temperatures mean *lower* heating costs.
Texas has naturally developed in a very different style, and with forthcoming Peak Oil, this may be relevant. In 2006, according to EIA, Texas was #1 in energy consumption, 5th per-capita (after AK, WY, LA, ND) and uses 2X/capita of states like NY or CA. Some of that is inherent in different climate and industry.
Sprawling development in a state with water problems, subject to dangerous weather extremes, and already seriously-dependent on air-conditioning, may end being expensive for the residents.
Scotland: makes money from fossil energy, but it was mostly built without it. Warmer temperatures reduce energy use.
Texas: already uses ~2.5-3X higher energy/capita, compared to Scotland. Warmer temperatures likely raise energy use.3. SUMMARY
Gerald North’s talk ended by asking:
“Is Texas the most vulnerable state?”That sounds like an expert on trains, hearing one coming in the distance, standing on the tracks amidst a bunch of kids, trying to get them off the tracks before there’s blood everywhere.
On the other side, someone safely away from tracks keeps telling the kids that experts are wrong, there is no danger, so they can play there as long as they like.
You will be well informed if you also read Mashey’s comments at #120 and #132.
13 Comments | Accuracy, Climate change, denialism, Economics, Environmental protection, Geography - Economic, Geography - Physical, Global warming, Government, Hoaxes, Politics, Rampant stupidity, Reason, Research, Science, Texas, Texas history | Tagged: Christopher Monckton, Climate change, Economics, Environmental protection, geography, Global warming, Hoaxes, John Mashey, Reason, Research, Science, Scotland, Texas | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Confused about intelligent design? Confused about how people with working brains could advocate intelligent design? Read this story — you could have an epiphany.
Leave a Comment » | A Good Story, Intelligent Design, Reason, Religion, Science | Tagged: Bedtime Story, Intelligent Design, Reason, Religion, Science, Scientific Method | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Seriously. Ed Brayton gets some serious crazy folk. I won’t mention their names, but even GB and NS aren’t quite that crazy. I hope.
Obama as a Marxist Muslim? Wow.
2 Comments | Barack Obama, Hoaxes, Rampant stupidity, Reason, Weblogs | Tagged: Hoaxes, Internet Crazies, President Obama, Rampant stupidity, Reason | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
You think some of those who deny Obama’s eligibility sound a little crazy?
Seems to be an accurate perception. From The Oregonian (via OregonLive.com):
A Springfield blogger is accused of threatening the life, limbs and lower alimentary canal of a Secret Service agent.
James T. Cuneo, 43, was indicted Thursday on charges of making a series of threats against Special Agent Ronald Brown in the course of his official duties.
This was strange turnabout for Brown, whose job in the agency’s Presidential Protection Division is mainly to thwart threats against the commander in chief. For the first time in his 15-year career, Brown wrote in federal court papers, someone was repeatedly harassing him.
There’s a difference between a dog on a bone and a psychotic; some of the Obama denialists appear to have blurred the difference. Cuneo’s complaint appears to revolve around the same issue that set off Texas Darlin’ and a few dozen others. Cuneo escalated the thing; let’s hope no others do the same.
On Oct. 16, Brown and Springfield police detectives dropped in on Cuneo to chat about threats he had allegedly made about Google executives on his Internet blog: walkndude.wordpress.com. (WordPress has taken the site offline for violation of its terms of service.)
“Cuneo was extremely belligerent, refused to answer questions and became increasingly threatening,” Brown wrote in an arrest affidavit. “We left the driveway of Cuneo’s residence without further incident.”
Cuneo then began to phone the Secret Service office in Portland, threatening Brown and others, the government alleges. “Cuneo,” Brown wrote, “seems to think that we are aiding and abetting the ‘illegal U.S. President’ and that he and others need to arrest us for not doing our job.”
Brown says Cuneo phoned him in January and, with a colorful series of expletives, threatened him with physical harm, including execution by hanging, electric chair or firing squad. Those threats — and Cuneo’s history of violence — concerned federal officials, according to Brown’s affidavit.
Time to get back to real issues. 2010 is around the corner, 2012 is not much farther.
And, by the way, a federal judge in the District of Columbia issued an order dismissing one of the many nuisance suits filed by the denialists (styled Hollister v. Soetoro) , stating clearly that the suits are nuisances and asking for a showing of why sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be applied. In short, the judge has ruled that the case against Obama’s eligibility is so rank and utterly without substance that any lawyer of average intelligence and sound mind should know better than to trouble a court with it. I think this is from the court’s order:
Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of the plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway [the attorney of record] to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11 (b) (1) and 11 (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.
Crazier fringes of the anti-Obama guild claim that a letter from Obama’s attorneys asking that the suit be dropped is “threatening.” It’s not threatening to tell the schoolyard bully to straighten up. How much ozone have these people depleted?
Update: Yes to Democracy also carries news on the March 24 action by Judge Robertson. When do the denialists finally wake up, smell the coffee, smell the stale beer cans, pinch themselves, take a shower and get on with life? So, to sum up: A judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed the suit and called the bluff of the plaintiffs and stealth plaintiffs; Huffington Post revealed the financial stake of WorldNet Daily in continuing to finance the suits, and in pushing the suits improperly; and a federal prosecutor won an indictment of a blogger who started rumbling about taking violent action in favor of the Birthers, and who failed to heed warnings to tone down his vitriol. Have the birthers figured it out yet?
Tip of the old scrub brush to Micah.
Resources:
128 Comments | Accuracy, Citizenship, Hoaxes, Jurisprudence, Law, Natural Born, Politics, President Obama, Presidential Eligibility, Presidents, Rampant stupidity, Reason | Tagged: Citizenship, Hoaxes, Litigation, Natural Born, Obama's Birth Certificate, Presidential Eligibility, Rampant stupidity, Reason, Rule 11 | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
One of the great attempted slams on Rachel Carson is the false and scurrilous claim that “population growth opponents” or environmentalists were overheard saying that with DDT, population growth would continue. Generally this canard is accompanied by an observation that France is now Islamic, since only Moslems have babies in France.
Where is Bob Park when you need a whiff of sanity?
Oh, there he is, at his blog and his newsletter (I’ve added the links):
4. POPULATION: ARE THEY SURE THEY HAVE THE THEORY RIGHT?
Demographic experts warn that population decline in Russia could have serious economic consequences. It’s the same growth-is-good bull shit that always comes from the Chamber of Commerce. Russia’s neighbors, Norway, Finland and Sweden, have the highest standards of living in the world and small populations. Afghanistan, on the other hand, which is not exactly a tourist Mecca, has a fertility rate above 7, the highest in the world.
Leave a Comment » | Accuracy, DDT, Rachel Carson, Reason, Science | Tagged: DDT, Population, Rachel Carson, Rampant stupidity, Reason, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Pastors appear to be much better informed than Christians generally, especially among mainstream Christian denominations, and particularly on issues of science. They understand better that creationism shouldn’t be taught in public school science classes.
On a broad range of issues, mainline clergy affirm equality for gay and lesbian Americans. Roughly two‐thirds of mainline clergy support some legal recognition for same‐sex couples (65%), passing hate crime laws (67%) and employment nondiscrimination protections for gay and lesbian people (66%). A majority (55%) of mainline clergy support adoption rights for gay and lesbian people. Mainline Protestant clergy are strong advocates of church state separation.
A majority (65%) of mainline clergy agree that the U.S. should “maintain a strict separation of church and state.” Mainline clergy are more worried about public officials who are too close to religious leaders (59%) than about public officials who do not pay enough attention to religion (41%).
Mainline clergy are more likely to publicly address hunger and poverty and family issues than controversial social issues. More than 8‐in‐10 clergy say they publicly expressed their views about hunger and poverty often in the last year, and three‐quarters say they addressed marriage and family issues often. Only about one‐quarter (26%) say they often discussed the issues of abortion and capital punishment.
But where is the Methodist church falling down in getting clergy who understand science? If 54% of Methodist pastors don’t think evolution is the best explanation for diversity of life (the question got muddled in the questionnaire, alas), no wonder their congregations are so misinformed. You’d think they’d know better. You’d think the denomination would be truer to its roots of making the minister the best-informed guy in town.
I’m looking at Clergy Voices: Findings from the 2008 Mainline Protestant Clergy Voices Survey, released in March. Public Religion Research conducted the poll. More details from PRR, here.
Mainline clergy views of evolution and its place in public school curriculum are complex. On the one hand, the majority of mainline clergy (54%) do not support the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public school biology classes. On the other hand, mainline clergy are more evenly divided in their views about the theory of evolution itself. Forty‐four percent of mainline ministers say that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life on earth, and a similar number disagrees (43%). United Methodist clergy and American Baptist clergy are most likely to disagree. Seven‐in‐ten American Baptist clergy (70%) and a majority (53%) of United Methodist clergy say that evolution is not the best explanation for the origins of life on earth.
One question glaringly missing: Should Christians stick to the facts about science?
Tip of the old scrub brush to Bruce Tomaso at the Dallas Morning News Religionblog.
Leave a Comment » | Creationism, Education, Evolution, Politics, Reason, Religion, Science | Tagged: Church, Creationism, Education, Evolution, Mainline Christianity, Politics, Reason, Religion, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Why isn’t it open-minded to teach intelligent design in science classes? Here, maybe one more explanation might help people understand.
From some film project that goes by the name Qualia Soup, via Pharyngula and Phil Plait at JREF:
8 Comments | Creationism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Reason, Science, Texas, Woo | Tagged: Creationism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Open-mindedness, Qualia Soup, Reason, Science, Texas | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Gamow and Myers.
From a report on Simon Singh’s presentation on Big Bang to the New York Academy of Sciences, reported by William Tucker:
There is much, much more to Singh’s chronicle. Did you know, for example, that helium was discovered in the sun before it was found on earth? Most terrestrial helium had long since drifted into space—hence the name, derived from “helios,” Greek for the sun. Then there is story of George Gamow’s first scientific experiment, when he took home the communion wafer in his cheek and put it under the microscope. He found no evidence of the Transubstantiation. “I think this was the experiment that made me a scientist,” he later wrote.
The report on Singh’s presentation is itself a good, concise history of Big Bang theory development, accompanied by this long list of top-notch, on-line resources about Big Bang.
ResourcesBooks:
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S. Kuhn. 1996. University of Chicago Press.
Amazon | Barnes & NobleBig Bang: The Origin of the Universe, by Simon Singh. 2005. Harper Collins, New York.
Amazon | Barnes & NobleThe Code Book, by Simon Singh. 2000. Anchor, New York.
Amazon | Barnes & NobleFermat’s Enigma, by Simon Singh. 1998. Anchor, New York.
Amazon | Barnes & NobleWeb Sites:
The Astronomy Cafe
Subtitled “The website for the astronomically disadvantaged,” Sten Odenwald’s site includes answers to many frequently asked questions about the universe and its origins and describes a number of books and articles he has written on the subject.“Big Bang” on Wikipedia
An encyclopedic overview of the subject, including the history of the theory, problems it has faced, and questions remaining to be investigated. The essay includes extensive hyperlinks to other related topics.Creation of a Cosmology: Big Bang Theory
A concise scientific explanation of the Big Bang theory.Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
This Web site for laypeople provides an archive of questions and answers about the Big Bang, and allows visitors to pose their own questions on the subject.“A Day Without Yesterday”: Georges Lemaître & the Big Bang
Extensive biography of Georges Lemaître (1894-1966).The First Three Minutes
Review of Steven Weinberg’s The First Three Minutes, a book about the very early development of the universe.Sir Fred Hoyle
Extensive biography of astronomer, mathematician, and novelist Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001).Great Debates in Astronomy
A series of debates held at the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History among leaders in the astronomical community. Features background information, educational material, and published proceedings for each debate.The History Guide: Giordano Bruno
Links to resources about the life of philosopher and astronomer Giordano Bruno (1548-1600).Hubble
Brief biography of Edwin Hubble.Physics: Cosmology and Astronomy
A collection of links to popular information on the subject, from About.com.Science & the Arts
A program organized by the City University of New York New Media Lab that bridges the two worlds. Expert speakers and performers—including recent participants like Laurie Anderson, Wallace Shawn, Michel Gondry, Brian Eno, and Todd Haynes, as well as Mighton and Greene—present examples of the interplay of science and the arts in dance, art, and theater. A calendar of upcoming events is available, as well as information about past offerings.The Ten Big Questions: Big Bang Theory
This page ponders philosophical questions related to the Big Bang theory.Theories Section—Big Bang
Concise article on the subject, written for educated non-astronomers, from Astronomy Today.From the Academy:
What Caused the “Bang” of the Big Bang?, featuring Alan H. Guth, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2001. New York Academy of Sciences eBriefing.
A 50-50 Chance of Making It to the 22nd Century? Martin Rees Asks Scientists to Help Improve the Odds. 2003. New York Academy of Sciences eBriefing.
String Theory: A Conversation with Brian Greene. 2003. New York Academy of Sciences eBriefing, co-sponsored by NOVA.
Mirror, Mirror: Robin Kerrod and the Romance of Astronomy. Reported by William Tucker. Author: Robin Kerrod. 2004. New York Academy of Sciences Readers & Writers article.
Cosmic Questions
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 950, published Dec 2001
Edited by James B. Miller
description |full text
Faber, S. M. The Big Bang as Scientific Fact. 2001. Annals Online 950: 39-53 abstract | full text
Guth, A. H. Eternal Inflation. 2001. Annals Online 950: 66-82 abstract | full text
Russell, R. J. Did God Create Our Universe? Theological Reflections on the Big Bang, Inflation, and Quantum Cosmologies. 2001. Annals Online 950: 108-127 abstract | full text
George Gamow
Encyclopedia entry on the life of physicist George Gamow (1904-1968).AstronomyLINKS
A small collection of annotated links on the big bang theory.
Also, see Simon Singh’s website.
Leave a Comment » | Big Bang, History, Physics, Reason, Religion, Research, Science, Woo | Tagged: Big Bang, George Gamow, History, P. Z. Myers, Physics, Reason, Religion, Research, Science, Woo | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Father Joe took issue with P. Z. Myers’s complaints about the Central Florida University incident at a Catholic mass held on campus. That’s fair. Anyone can see why a Catholic priest would find Myers’ complaints to be at least a sharp rebuke, if not offensive.
But Father Joe is off the track, following others. He insists that the church has no reason to call for calm, that the church is absolutely blameless if others, like Bill Donohue, either advocate violence or otherwise carry things beyond the pale.
In comments, the entire discussion grows very disturbing. Father Joe now claims that Myers encouraged acts of violence against the Catholic Church — a patently false claim — and he and others now list any act of vandalism against a Catholic Church, and blame it on Myers (see also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). (Nor will Father Joe allow me to comment on that thread any more — the old fingers-in-ears defense against reason and criticism. Censorship is one of the first signs of totalitarian idiocy.)
Casting blame falsely — there’s a commandment against such action. Do you think these guys know about it?
The acts of vandalism, burglary and destruction noted at Father Joe’s blog, especially those in churches, are grotesque demonstrations of depravity. The culprits should be caught and punished. They aren’t the fault of science, they aren’t the fault of a guy who asks Catholics to back off of terroristic threats. From the use of religious symbols, we can be quite certain that few if any are committed by atheists.
Ironic, no? Asked to renounce terrorism, Father Joe claims to be a victim. Then he stirs up a mob with tales to cast blame on those who asked for calm and reason. If it’s true, as Father Joe claims, that “Dr. P.Z. Myers’ crusade against religion illustrates defects in civility, empathy and imagination,” then it is equally true that a Father Joe-led jihad against civility, empathy and imagination illustrates defects in religion.
Nuts. We can’t get these people to stop venting and pounding their breasts, let alone talk. Dare we let them alone in a room with one another?
We’ve seen it before. Beirut. Sarajevo. Berlin. Berlitz. Brussels. Segovia. On St. Bartholomew’s Day. In the Cultural Revolution. Madness creeps in, and soon is epidemic.
We wish worship services could proceed without interruption, without insult, with joy and encouragement of good deeds. We wish religionists would demonstrate the love they claim to seek, and that others would show it to them.
Some people are too busy nailing delinquents to crosses to stop and do the right thing. Can we at least lock up their hammers?
I wish Myers would apologize for unnecessary offense he may have made. He won’t. I wish the crazies calling for his scalp would apologize for the unnecessary offenses they may have made by insisting others grant their faith privileges it should not have, and especially for the unnecessary offenses from the threats by their fellow travelers. They won’t. ‘We were insulted. Death threats should be expected. If I didn’t personally make the threat, I’m not responsible.’ No one is a keeper of anyone’s brother. Claims of not being part of the mob are offered as reasons for why nothing was done to stop the mob.
If I had an answer for how to stop stupid bellicosity, I’d be on my way to Moscow and Tbilisi right now. Any suggestions out there?
_ _.
Update: Father Joe responded: “Urging people to steal hosts and to desecrate them is the sort of thing once reserved to crazy people and dabblers in the occult. It can escalate into all sorts of other crimes.”
Coming from anyone else other than a priest, that could easily be construed as a threat. Unfortunately, Father Joe gives us little ground to argue it should not be so considered in this case.
12 Comments | Nonviolent protest, Peace, Reason, Religion | Tagged: Host Desecration, Non-violence, Peace, Reason, Religion | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Context means a lot.
At a religious service on a state college campus, a congregant violated etiquette at communion. Some reports noted that sect members bullied the congregant on the spot. The congregant fled the service, according to some reports. An advocacy group for the religious sect demanded apologies, legal action, and ostracism for the congregant. Threats of violence against the congregant started rolling in. The congregent was told he will be murdered.
A professor at a good, small midwestern state college used his pen to urge calm among the sect’s members. Threats of violence are foolish, he says. Calm down, he said.
The professor tried to put things in perspective: Threatening murder for a violation of communion etiquette is beyond the pale, one of the dangers of violent religious sects. Such actions are the opposite of American tradition.
But then the prof took a step farther: This religious sect is functioning on superstition, he said. He said the superstition can be exposed, and he would use his skeptical powers to expose the superstition, to show everyone that threats of death on such issues are unwise, unnecessary, and to be avoided.
Rod Dreher, who last week complained in his column about the lasting damage that bullies can do to kids in schools, weighed in on the communion/death threats matter with a column this week in the Dallas Morning News.
How did Dreher weigh in?
A. He calls for an end to bullying, and urges calm.
B. He says religious wars started this way, and he urges calm.
C. He calls for an end to bullying, but urges the professor to lay off debunking the religion.
D. He calls the professor hateful, and supports the side that issued the death threats.
See below the fold.
13 Comments | Rampant stupidity, Reason, Religion, Religious Freedom, Violence | Tagged: Reason, Religion, Religious Freedom, Religious Violence, Superstition, Violence | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Or, why thinking carefully often outweighs shouting loudly in the free market of ideas. I stumbled across this entry, a serious question to a serious Buddhist practitioner.
2 Comments | DDT, Environmental protection, Reason, Religion | Tagged: DDT, Environmental protection, Reason, Religion | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Especially in science — how do we know what we know?
A charitable trust in Britain called Sense About Science makes a start on explaining peer review, the process scientists use in science journals to referee what is accurate and what is not.
The site looks legitimate, though I’m no great judge of British scientists (see the board of trustees and advisors).
The site has several sets of debunking material, debunking things like “alternative” treatments for malaria, plus an 8-page pamphlet on how peer review works.
See especially these publications (available in downloadable .pdf):
The booklets are available free, but I’ll wager they were intended for British consumption — I’m not sure they’d mail them across the Atlantic.
It’s worth a look. See any problems with using that pamphlet in a classroom? I am very interested if you find a problem with any of the materials there.
Leave a Comment » | Accuracy, History, Reason, Santayana's ghost, Science | Tagged: critical thinking, History, peer review, Reason, Science, truth | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Carnival of the Liberals #52 comes to us from Yikes! It’s number 52, marking two years of bringing the best of liberalism, classic and otherwise.
In honor of the Big Bloggy Meeting hosted by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State last week in Washington, this issue focuses on issues of separation of church and state. This is the 60th year of AU — so celebrate some freedom, will you?
The next edition of the Carnival of the Liberals will be hosted by Neural Gourmet, and will be a “best of” issue for the past year. Here’s the official plug:
The next edition of Carnival of The Liberals on December 5th is the first edition of CotL’s third year and will be hosted by Leo at Neural Gourmet.
CotL #53 will be the annual “best of” edition. The rules for this edition are somewhat different from previous editions of CotL:
- It is restricted to only bloggers who have appeared in CotL over the past year
- Bloggers should send in what they consider to be their “best” post from the past year that hasn’t appeared in CotL
- From those submitted I’ll pick what I consider to be the “best of the best” and run those (I’ll also link to the rest on the CotL site).
And finally, Carnival of The Liberals is looking for hosts for next year. If you would like to have the fun of reading ALL the posts submitted, not just the ones selected, email Leo (“tng”) Lincourt at: leolincourt AT gmail DOT com.
Leave a Comment » | Politics, Reason, Weblogs | Tagged: Carnival of the Liberals, Politics, Reason | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Ed Darrell on Texas's Colorado River
Come on in, the water's fine. Come often: Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
