Month: August 2010

Science magazine obtained the numbers left out of the National Science Foundation's Science and Engineering Indicators report this year.

When presented with the statement “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” just 45 percent of respondents indicated “true.” Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). Only 33 percent of Americans agreed that “the universe began with a big explosion.”

Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto created an animation showing every nuclear bomb explosion from 1945 to 1998. It starts slow, but by the three minute mark the light show is incredible.

Courtney Martin makes various questionable assumptions in this article, but her basic point is valid:

According to new research unveiled this month, women were far more involved in the atrocities committed during the Holocaust than previously thought. Wendy Lower, an American historian living in Munich, uncovered that thousands of German women ("a conservative estimate") willingly went out to the Nazi-occupied eastern territories to take part in the "war effort," otherwise known as genocide.

This news is disturbing, to be sure, but it's also not surprising. Anyone who reacts with shock to the reality that women have the capacity to be immoral, malicious, and violent — just like the guys — hasn't paid enough attention in history class, much less to the nightly news.

Dan Ariely recently did some research on it:

What I think this means (and we need more research on this) is that giving individuals a disorder-label causes others viewing them to place the blame on the disorder and not on the person.  Think for example about a parent who is told that their kid has ADHD – would this parent blame themselves less than if they were told that their kid is an active difficult kid? 

I think the answer is yes, and maybe this is one of the reasons that we as a society seem to be obsessed with diagnostic labels (other reasons include incentives for psychologists, medical companies etc).

The young Turk asks about the selective reading of biblical literalists (Timothy Kincaid made a related point in list form):

"Cancer" by Stanley Plumly.

An excerpt:

Now to see what wasn’t seen before:

the old loved landscape fading from the window,

the druid soul within the dying tree,

the depth of blue coloring the cornflower,

the birthday-ribbon river of a road,

and the young man who resembles you

opening a door in the half-built house

you helped your father build,

saying, in your voice, come forth.

The full poem is here.

A reader writes:

Not to defend Deepak Chopra, but Michael Shermer is just plain wrong when he asserts that Quantum Mechanics is not relevant to ordinary life and the notion of a objective, Newtonian reality. I suggest you read this very astute article on the work of Anton Zeilinger, one of the leading quantum physicists of our time. He explains how the old model of QM has been broken by experimental results, and that it really does imply that objective reality can no longer be considered valid even for large, everyday objects. 

Another writes:

I can't speak to the Chopra's arguments, nor to Shermer's larger rebuttal, but when the latter writes, "But the world of subatomic particles has no correspondence with the world of Newtonian mechanics," he isn't really accurate and I don't think it forms a solid basis of rebuttal.  Quantum mechanics describes results of Newtonian calculations accurately at scale.  It's true that two different mathematics are at work, and that Newtonian mechanics cannot describe quantum systems, but quantum mechanics can accurately describe Newtonian systems.

A reader writes:

I have been following the manufactured mosque controversy but not until last night was the depth of its penetration so apparent to me.

My wife and I went out to dinner with ten of our neighbors. Eight of our group identify strongly with the current mold of the Republican party. I cannot call them conservatives although that is assuredly how they would describe themselves. But their supple willingness to swallow the dyspeptic paranoia fed them by Palin, Gingrich, Cheney and their fellow travelers and then disgorge it as their own view no longer entitles them to the mantle of conservative, at least in my view.

At dinner, the Cordoba Mosque came up with the six of us at my end of the table. These five friends oppose the mosque to a person. They have no coherent argument as to why beyond what they have been fed, that this is an affront to the victims of 9/11.

But they do have an answer to first amendment issues. They contend, as have others, that somehow Islam is not covered under the Constitutional protections. While they did not exactly call Islam a cult rather than a religion, there was no doubt they do not feel it deserves the same consideration of Christianity and Judaism in the United States. All of them would contend that they are strict Constitutional constructionists but somehow believe that a faith followed by 1.5 billion worldwide is not a true religion.

They kept coming back to the "sacred ground" concept, that somehow this spot is sanctified, but only for non-Muslims. Never mind the followers of Islam that died in the towers. In their view no Muslim should be permitted to worship in this area.

Which led me to my final point and question. Muslims pray five times a day and at least two of those prayers (noon and afternoon) would take place during the workday. Since this ground is too holy to have an Islamic facility several blocks away, must they not then insist on a prohibition of the employment of Muslims in the new tower? After all, those prayers by those workers would be offered on the actual site of the tragedy, in multiple places in the 105 stories of the building.

There was some hemming and hawing but it was clear I had made no headway. It has gone far beyond the mosque, which is just a handy symbol those spouting these conspiracy theories upon which they can hang their foul arguments, petty fears and thinly veiled racist beliefs.

These people are my friends and shall remain so. But I wonder today: Have they been led in this direction or have they always held these views and were waiting for affirmation of them from those they see as national leaders.

I fear the answer to that question.

So do I. You know who doesn't fear the answer to that question – indeed relishes and desires it? Osama bin Laden.

(Disgusting Carl Paladino ad via Time)