Dec 25 2009
Wishing all curious minds/freethinkers/skeptics, a day of joy. Which depends on ancient myths not a bit.
Family and friends, gifts, festive food and drink, colorful decorations: these are the real reasons people embrace the season.
Dec 23 2009
My childhood memories of Christmas include the decorated tree, the presents, playing in the snow. And food.
In the center of our Christmas dinner table was a baked turkey with ground pork stuffing. (Can you guess my heritage? For an additional hint, check out my last name.) The first time I encountered a bread stuffing I found it odd. Though now I prefer it.
In this season of holidays I enjoy learning about the customs of others. And because I tend to think with my stomach, here’s brief sampling of some of the interesting, traditional dishes that people in other nations serve during this time of year (courtesy of Wikipedia).
I think I’ll stop at Hungary cause I’m getting hungry. More later.
What are holidays but good excuses to eat, drink and be merry?
Care to share what special food you are looking forward to stuffing in your piehole in the coming days?
Dec 17 2009
I am liberal in my political leanings, but also generally skeptical. Regardless of the cause a claim might aid, I tend to question it.
And that is the case with a recent finding touted with this headline: Debunking fears: Latino growth does not boost crime.
In the lead paragraph I encountered a sentence which raised a red flag in my mind. See if it raises one in yours:
[A] new study from North Carolina State University debunks those fears [of increased crime and more], showing that the introduction of Latinos contributes to positive changes, not negative ones.
The flag? Gross-simplification alert. It seems to me that the introduction of Latinos to a community would involve a whole host of variables. What Latinos (from where, what age, what job skills, etc., etc.)? What communities (how large, how diverse, how affluent or not, job availability, etc., etc.)?
And as for the changes “contributed to,” they were all positive? Were all measured?
Some of my questions were answered by a description of the study, which was based on data from “the U.S. Census and other sources”:
The study examined the effects of significant Latino population growth between 1990 and 2000 in nonmetropolitan “boomtowns,” which emerged as Latinos arrived to fill new jobs in low-wage industries, especially meat processing.
Huh? From that kind of circumscribed data, they have debunked fears and shown that the introduction of Latinos contributes to positive changes only?
Mind you, it may be the case. But I’m skeptical. This finding may also be a case of adroit data-mining.
My own guess is that if you introduced a large number of Latinos into a non-boomtown area, the results might be different. Just as the case would likely be if introducing a large number of Canadians (of similar affluence, education, etc.).
Yes, there is too much stupid xenophobia in our society. But let’s not attempt to counter-act it with bogusly big claims generated by relatively weak science.
Better writing, more scientific writing, might have generated a title and content worded something like this alternative: “Challenging fears: Latino population growth alone not linked to crime.”
Dec 10 2009
Conservatives like to claim that ours is a Christian nation, founded by Christians on Christian principles. I beg to differ. For their time, the founders, on whole, were remarkably secular in attitude and philosophy. Many were deists — believing in a non-denominational creator who extends no hand into the workings of the world — which carried the reputation then as the atheist carries today.
Perhaps the most founding of our founders was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was most certainly not a Christian, having written his own version of the New Testament, subtracting out all the supernatural elements. He considered Jesus to be a teacher/philosopher and nothing more. So no, a Christian he wasn’t.
In an exciting historical development, brought to my attention by a news release at ScienceDaily, I learned of a recently discovered letter written by Jefferson. I downloaded the image of the document and tried to better clean it up for printing with Photoshop to read.
With some difficulty I did read it. One of the things that struck me was that in this personal correspondence expressing condolence over the death of a compatriot, there was not a hint of religious sentiments or mention of a god. Any of you familiar with religious folk know that one of the times believers typically trot out their god-talk is during occasions of death and loss. Not Jefferson.
The a-religiosity of Jefferson, and the secular nature of the U.S. Constitution, is no coincidence.
This morning I found a transcript of the letter online, and have included that below the fold.
Dec 04 2009
Is it sexist to observe gender differences in shopping habits? I don’t think so. However, how you talk and write about those differences may cross the line to a smaller degree or larger.
In a news release found over at ScienceDaily, Male and Female Shopping Strategies Show Evolution at Work in the Mall, I encountered this line of reasoning:
In modern terms, women are much more likely than men to know when a specific type of item will go on sale. Women also spend much more time choosing the perfect fabric, color and texture.
Men, on the other hand, often have a specific item in mind and want to get in, get it and get out, Kruger said. It’s critical to get meat home as quickly as possible. Taking young children isn’t safe in a hunt and would likely hinder progress.
Hmm. I wonder. While the above description fits my experience of clothes shopping with my wife, the pattern is nearly perfectly reversed when in a home-improvement mega-store. I could spend an hour in the electrical department alone. My wife, meanwhile, would be grabbing the item on our list and making a bee-line for the check-out. How is that like male hunting and female gathering?
I further wonder whether the perspective expressed in the following paragraph so much explains what has been observed as much as it may manifest a pre-existing sentiment that shaped what was observed and/or guided thinking post-observation.
From an evolutionary perspective, it all harkens back to the skills that women used for gathering plant foods and the skills that men used for hunting meat. The contrast emerges because of the different foraging strategies for hunting and gathering used throughout human evolution.
Although I am a big fan of evolutionary psychology, I think the softly scientific pursuit needs to be done well and presented with due judiciousness.
Personally, I don’t find the above type of science and science writing sexist. It is innocent of any belittling or limiting of one gender type or another. As far as I perceive. However, the discussion does strike me as presenting an over-generalized generalization. Solid science gets specific.
Finally, what most causes me to most doubt the article’s argument is the lack of data. I couldn’t find the source data for the conclusions drawn. How can a critical thinker be confident of any claim lacking a tether to real-world data?
Nov 18 2009
If you ask me, the “New Atheist” has not sharp claws, but merely a bigger megaphone and more blunt way of speaking. Nonetheless, he and she may be more cat-like than other non-believing types.
This cartoon from atheistcartoons.com got me thinking about it:
Many have said that trying to get atheists to work together is like herding cats. Maybe so. If so, I say, “great.” For in a robust democracy I believe these two elements are essential: a diversity of thought and a diversity of personalities expressing their thoughts.
But that’s just the opinion of one fairly cat-like dude.
Nov 15 2009
An article I read yesterday got me thinking about the U.S. constitution.
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
You can probably guess its source: the Onion. Another funny, spot-on parody.
Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.
Imagine this argument:
Person 1:
The Constitution says “X.” Therefore, position “X” — my position — is the right one.
Persons 2:
No, the Constitution says “Y.” Therefore, position “Y” — my position — is the right one.
I’d be tempted to step into the above and say,
Screw the Constitution. It’s an imperfect document. Tell me about your values instead, for that is what the issue really is. And while you are at it, convince me why your values should be preserved/embraced by this country.
“Screw the Constitution”? What kind of anarchism is that?! Actually, it’s freethought. As a freethinker I hold no idea or document to be above critical scrutiny. Just as I freely criticize what’s in the Bible, I will freely criticize another document that some people will present as sacred, particularly when they believe it supports their cause.
Of course, I would not scrap the Constitution. I would certainly consider further amending it. Yes, the U.S. Constition is an important and largely esteem-worthy piece of legislation and legislative history.
But it was written hundreds of years ago by men who lived in different times. Their culture was different; their economy was different; their technology was different; the threats to their peace and prosperity were different.
I don’t value the paper ideas are expressed upon. I value the ideas themselves. Or not. As I see it, the Constitution expresses and protects a set of values. These values are largely about a desired or preferred lifestyle. And I don’t mean lifestyle flippantly. Lifestyle means the freedom to engage in some behaviors and the prohibition to engage in others. Lifestyle includes the opportunities we want to preserve and obligations we consider important.
Maybe it’s the scientist in me. But whenever I hear a political disagreement, I really wish people would stop talking in abstracts and get to the nitty-gritty. Okay, you say you love freedom. But the freedom for what?
Nov 13 2009
How is free speech dangerous? We can be subjected to verbal challenges to our cherished beliefs. Which is a good thing.
I prize free speech. This cartoon is presented in that spirit. Significantly, the topic ventures where speech today is least free. If we are not vigilant, our speech could become less free.
[source]
As evidence of my least-free point, the author of these cartoons apparently writes under a pseudonym.
Nov 10 2009
Genetic influences play a mammoth role in human behavior. Put bluntly, no genes, no behavior. In the very least, genes provide the biological foundation for the environment to nurture and shape.
Two studies on social behavior, published earlier this most recent half-year, independently show that while we may come into the world ready to “get along” with others, our social settings and experiences play a role in how well we do.
1. Harriet Over and Malinda Carpenter of the Max Planck Institute found that 18 month-old children could be primed to behave more prosocially (offer help to an adult who dropped an object) simply by first observing a scene in which two dolls sat facing one another, versus facing away. Fascinating. [source]
2. In a statistical study using data on neighboring social groups, researchers at the University of California Davis found that shared culture better accounted for differences in altruistic behavior than did genes. Not surprising, but interesting nonetheless. [source]
As a person with a largely humanistic worldview, my general thoughts on the matter are, “Well, yes, we are all human. We all are born with an interest in and ability for forming harmonious, mutually beneficial, social relationships.” Certainly, there is a significant amount of difference in terms of how interested and able specific individuals may become. But our native propensities can certainly be encouraged or discouraged by our social environment and learning experiences.
Oct 26 2009
Science and compassion in the same sentence? How in the world do those two go together? Allow me to explain.
In some regards I could qualify as a bleeding-heart liberal. I often think, “Go ahead and tax the very well-off — and even me, of the less-well-off but still well class — to fund project X, which will help the less fortunate. We live in a society, after all. We’re all in this together.
But I do realize that simply throwing money at a problem can miss the mark. What the practice of throwing money at a problem accomplishes is the comforting thought that you are doing something, and sometimes little else. I want to help, but not if in the end it’s not helping.
Recent analysis of the factors influencing the severity of this country’s Great Depression led to this finding: Hoover’s pro-labor stance helped cause Great Depression, UCLA economist says.
In particular, the economist in question, Lee E. Ohanian, concluded -
The policies, which included both propping up wages and encouraging job-sharing, also accounted for more than two-thirds of the precipitous decline in hours worked in the manufacturing sector, which was much harder hit initially than the agricultural sector, according to Ohanian.
“By keeping industrial wages too high, Hoover sharply depressed employment beyond where it otherwise would have been, and that act drove down the overall gross national product,” Ohanian said. “His policy was the single most important event in precipitating the Great Depression.”
Hmm. Was that really the case? May have been. As far as I can tell –which isn’t very far because this area of research is relatively foreign to me — this is the conclusion of one man’s retrospective analysis. Something to be taken with a grain of salt.
Still, the point remains. Sometimes we can hurt society in the long run by rushing to help in the short. I wonder about the recent financial bail-outs of struggling companies, for one.
A substantial part of the problem, as I see it, is that the cost of helping is generally spread very thin. Because it doesn’t hurt the individual all that much, people are more willing to throw massive amounts of money at a problem. Yet funds are finite, and saying “just charge it” is irresponsible. So we should be smart with how we help. And scientific thinking is the best way to determine what actually works. Which is another reason to infuse more of it into politics.
Feeds