Thank you New York Times. Jesus, it's about time for this article to come out.

The truth of the matter is that ID isn't supported by science. It *is* a political issue and it *is* a religious issue. And one supported only by a relatively narrow religious viewpoint too.

John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific "fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.

"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."

...

"The future of intelligent design, as far as I'm concerned, has very little to do with the outcome of the Dover case," Mr. West said. "The future of intelligent design is tied up with academic endeavors. It rises or falls on the science."

This guy's pretty savvy, because he knows that if you make your opponents look unhinged, you undercut their credibility. It's good politics. But then, if the scientific community is hysterical, it's because there are actually people claiming to be scientists working as hard as possible to destroy the very notion of science. That makes me angry too. But that doesn't mean i'm unable to make a rational argument. I'd like to think he's right about his last statement, because it works to the advantage of the scientific standpoint. This segment from earlier in the article is very telling :

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

That says an awful lot to me. You keep hearing about the "science" behind ID, but I don't see it being produced. Here's an organization who's dedicated to reconciling science with religion *asking* to spend money on this research. But no, nothing. So the claim that the liberal academic elite have been blocking ID from the journals falls a little flat. If the science was there, someone could have published it by now.

But that's not the point is it. Mr. West's claims not withstanding, this issue has almost nothing to do with teaching science or doing science. It's a fron... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

Decius wrote:

On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply for admission.

In order to refuse these students the State must establish that they do not gain the basic knowledge needed in order to comprehend college level material from these classes.

Is that, in fact, the criteria, or are you simply stating that it ought to be? I don't disagree, but I'm curious.

I think this case is far more interesting than the ID movement which, though well supported and high profile, is also, i find, transparent and simpleminded (which is not the same as saying it's not a threat of course). This, however, raises some interesting questions.

At the risk of falling into the trap of basing an argument on too little information, I've some comments.

The example you found of the UC rejecting the course on the basis of the text being an anthology vs. a full novel sounds like a fairly arbitrary one. Certainly it's the school's right to determine that anthologies don't suffice, and base acceptance on that determination, but it doesn't speak to the subtleties of this issue.

The "troubling" example you found is far more fascinating because it does potentially insinuate that a book which teaches science from the standpoint of Christian beliefs cannot adequately teach science. That dangerously close to saying that Christianity and Science are incompatible (which is, of course, hogwash) though not precisely the same. It depends a great deal on how the material is presented, in my opinion. If the scientific method is left intact and the physical principles presented fully, including the mathematical proofs behind them, then that's fine. If for even one moment, the books resorts to a "because God ordained it so" as a *reason* some physical principle exists, without indicating either that there's higher level math required to understand it or that presently we don't understand it, then it is doing the students a disservice.

The question, as you say, comes down to whether it's the religious *perspective* that UC is rejecting or if, in fact, these courses fail to adhere to reasonable educational standards. In fact, it calls into question the entire concept of what standards *are* reasonable, which is the greater prize in this battle, I think. For me, I think, that comes down to two things. The first is if the Christian perspective is the *only* one taught. It's perfectly fine to discuss the problems that Twain or Dickinson had with God or with Religion. I'll even say it's good insofar as that's much a part of who they were. However, if in so doing, the texts or instructors leave out the influence these authors had or fail to analyze the work in historical context and so on, then stu... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

RE: Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson - New York Times

Atlanta is the seventh most dangerous city overall. It is the fourth most dangerous among the 208 cities of its size (100-500k).

[ Hm, that may be atlanta's official population, but it's misleading due to the way the city is structured. There's no way Amherst, MA is an apples-to-apples comparison with Atlanta. And if the overall rankings are based on "crimes per capita" on a total of < 500,000, i think that's an inflated number too. I'm not saying this is a utopia, but I truly question the methodology here. I'd have to be convinced. -k]

City Crime Rankings by Population Group

flynn23 wrote:

I wouldn't think of it as sad. In fact, I find it a bit beautiful. I don't see the need for specialization that you reference. I think the world needs both types. Successful organizations need both types. Marriages need both types. A damn good band needs both types. It's the ability to do wonderful things when you have the hyper curious and the hyper focused working well together that makes for some truly magical moments. I spend most of my time and personal effort figuring out ways to cultivate those relationships.

Actually, you're quite right. I was imprecise in my earlier writing, but I absolutely see the value inherent in both types of person working together. The comments I made were from the standpoint that the pressure to specialize is increasing rapidly and that the result will be too few generalists. The referenced article points in that direction, and it's been a supposition of mine, but perhaps neither us are correct... I don't know. Another concern is the very fact that highly focused people often disdain any knowledge or information outside their well defined purview, which, I posit, tends to marginalize the generalist. I certainly feel like I have a lot to learn from highly focused people (and have in the past), but I fear that too many of them don't feel like I have much to offer them.

[ I use "me", but I don't mean to imply that I'm the best example of general knowledge. I'm just using myself as a standin for similar (and often more adept) indviduals. ]

-k

RE: Lack of curiosity is curious

From the Foreign Affairs review:

This is a pathbreaking study of how historically, Japanese personal networks, both vertical and horizontal, operated to establish powerful norms of beauty, propriety, and good manners, which in turn gave a distinctive dimension to Japanese political behavior. The powerful, and those aspiring to power, had to take seriously group participation in composing poems (haikai) according to rigorously defined standards; they had to display refinement in reacting to art and music, elegance in carrying out ordinary tasks such as pouring tea, and exact discipline in their dress and social manners. It is standard in most cultures to associate dignity with authority, but the Japanese carried the linkage of aesthetics and power well beyond mere dignity. Ikegami, a sociologist, traces the evolution of the various strands of Japanese aesthetic standards as they developed in the key cities where government officials and merchant leaders interacted. The result is a rich and detailed cultural history from medieval times to the Meiji period.

From the excerpt:

When networks based on aesthetic activities intersected the rapidly expanding social, political, and economic networks of the Tokugawa period, a set of unforeseen complex social and cultural dynamics emerged in Japanese society.

The rise of aesthetic Japan is not simply the story of elite intellectuals who created a national myth. Rather, it was the accumulative effect of largely unplanned actions of originally unrelated people who began to network with each other. They did this in order to search for ways of socializing with each other and, in doing so, to trespass feudal boundaries and limitations.

The central focus of this book is the fluid dynamics and unexpected consequences of what might be called “the Tokugawa network revolution.” As I see it, a critical moment of cultural history in any society occurs when communicative networks suddenly expand in scale, density, and complexity. The resulting patterns of communication influence both the form and the content of the discourse conveyed through the networks. The kinds of cultural resources that are available at the time of network expansion will determine the range of content in the resulting cultural identities of that society. Thus, the extension of a society’s communicative networks and the alteration of its cognitive maps are reciprocally influential.

Bonds of Civility

Over dinner a few weeks ago, the novelist Lawrence Naumoff told a troubling story. He asked students in his introduction to creative writing course at UNC-Chapel Hill if they had read Jack Kerouac. Nobody raised a hand. Then he asked if anyone had ever heard of Jack Kerouac. More blank expressions.

"I guess I've always known that many students are just taking my course to get a requirement out of the way," Naumoff said.

In our increasingly complex world, the amount of information required to master any particular discipline -- e.g. computers, life insurance, medicine -- has expanded geometrically. We are forced to become specialists, people who know more and more about less and less.

In this frightening new world, students do not turn to universities for mind expansion but vocational training.

When was the last time you met anyone who was ashamed because they didn't know something?

[ I've been talking about this for years, and thinking about it since a very early age. Growing up has given me the acuity to define my early unease and express the issue in words, but I have felt this way for as long as I can remember.

For whatever reason, I'm a naturally curious person. I make no claims of expertise in *any* subject, and get by in work by being sufficiently intelligent and attentive to do a competent, and often a good, job, despite not being anything like a specialist. It's been a contant source of tension in my life -- on the one hand admiring people who are at the very pinnacle of their field, and on the other hand being surprised and annoyed at the things people, particularly these very smart people, don't know a thing about. And, as the article says, the most troubling aspect for me is not that they don't know something, but that they express no interest in learning it. We've become such pragmatists that anything which doesn't further our qualifications in one or two narrow focus areas is unwanted, undesired... perhaps even a distraction.

I don't deny that my lack of focus, my broad interests, are probably detrimental to me in the long run. I think it's probably true that the specialization requirements will not abate. I onlt hope that I can continue to coast on intellect enough to make a decent living and enjoy my life. I can say for certain, any life in which I must turn away from the vastness of knowable things, discard fiction and biology, religion, politics, and all the rest so that I can focus all my energies on one thing is not a life worth living, for me. I think it's a pity, with so much available to us, that we can't grasp it, for fear of losing the race, not being successful. It's sad. -k]

Lack of curiosity is curious

Decius wrote:

When students post their faces, personal diaries and gossip on Web sites like Myspace.com and Xanga.com, it is not simply harmless teen fun, according to one Sussex County Catholic school principal.It's an open invitation to predators and an activity that Pope John XIII Regional High School in Sparta will no longer tolerate, the Rev. Kieran McHugh told a packed assembly of 900 high school students two weeks ago.

Effective immediately, and over student complaints, the teens were told to dismantle their Myspace.com accounts or similar sites with personal profiles and blogs. Defy the order and face suspension, students were told.

Stupid, and infuriating. Not the school's purview.

If they want to tell the parents that they believe X,Y,Z about weblogs, etc. and say "Hey, you might want to check up on your kids web activities," I still think they're dicks, but that's fine. And I'm talking about a general missive... not a direct letter to Susie's dad saying "Susie has a blog at ... and it's putting her in DANGER!" But for them to tell a student "You can't do this in your spare time, at home, not using school resources"?

100% bullshit.

The primary impetus behind the ban is to protect students, McHugh said. The Web sites, popular forums for students to blog about their lives and feelings about their teachers and schools, are fertile ground for sexual predators to gather information about children, he said.

McHugh, shut the fuck up. You can justify anything by saying it's to "protect the children." Protect the children by fucking EDUCATING THEM. THAT is your job. Censoring, limiting, and hassling them is not.

RE: MemeStreams banned by New Jersey Catholic School

janelane wrote:

Bill Clinton was most certainly not impeached. And your last statement pretty much sums up the quagmire of deception that is the Bush Administration. Or, maybe Bush is just that stupid. The jury is still out.

-janelane, politically

Bush may be stupid, but that's not what this is about anyway. This is about all the very smart and very unethical people who surround him. It's about how those people craft a reality in which they get to do what they want and get away with it.

These people know what they're doing. I don't think any of them doubt what happened, or it's overall seriousness. I think they do know and don't care, because political power is more important than doing the right thing. I've become that level of cynical. And that's worse... if you're a zealot and a True Believer and just don't think anything wrong was done, then you're just foolish. If you downplay it because you know just how wrong and thus damaging it is, that's evil. It should disqualify one from public service.

sidenote, I'm 99% sure BC was actually impeached. IIRC it just means congress formally charged him. Removal from office is only one outcome, and dependent upon the revelations and truths that come from the proceedings. he was eventually censured, but not removed from office.

RE: Lawyers see charges this week in CIA-leak case

Only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are scientifically savvy and alert. Most of the rest don't have a clue.

At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.

American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

Also scary from the article, "Lately, people who advocate the teaching of evolution have been citing Dr. Miller's ideas on what factors are correlated with adherence to creationism and rejection of Darwinian theories. In general, he says, these fundamentalist views are most common among people who are not well educated and who "work in jobs that are evaporating fast with competition around the world."

[ Pretty super! I'm glad to see numbers, but are you really surprised? Honestly, who can doubt that education is the *MOST* critical function of a modern society? We should be spending as much money as possible on it, because there's *NO* other way to prepare for the future. I mean, i guess killing some people on the other side of the world is important too, but... -k]

Scientific Savvy? In US, Not Much

p to 1,000 teenage boys have been separated from their parents and thrown out of their communities by a polygamous sect to make more young women available for older men, Utah officials claim. Many of these "Lost Boys", some as young as 13, have simply been dumped on the side of the road in Arizona and Utah, by the leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), and told they will never see their families again or go to heaven.

[ Ugh. Seriously. I wish Jesus would take a more active role in disavowing fools who claim to do hateful, vicious shit in his name. I know he's about turning the other cheek, but couldn't he at least be like "Seriously, guys, you crazy. I mean, I'm not gonna kill ya, but for real, I didn't say any of that stuff. Just saying, you know?" -k]

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | The lost boys, thrown out of US sect so that older men can marry more wives