i haz ben publishd

Sorry, I stumbled across this silly little web phenomenon, LOLCATS, last night and couldn't help myself.

"Published" is a short response to Michael Kinsley's review of Christopher Hitchens'book God is Not Great. I thought Kinsley botched the idea of Occam's razor. On closer inspection, he glossed over it more than botched it, discussing it in a way that, while perhaps more sophisticated, requires a lot more space to explain than he gave it. I presented what I think is a shorter and simpler version.

Not a big deal and I was frankly surprised they printed it at all. The only other letter I ever sent to a newspaper was also published a few years ago. It was a response to a Newsday article lambasting a day of science professional development put together by my then boss, the science coordinator in District 6. It was a hatchet job that had less to do with the particulars of the PD and everything to do with objection to the very IDEA that teachers should have PD days. I'm still angry about that and won't touch a Newsday paper.

Dennis Miller Has Left the Reality-Based Community

I'm sure this is old news, but I don't keep up with Miller's career so this just came up on my radar as I was channel surfing last night and stumbled on his O'Really Factor segment. In this case, talking about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, he categorically and absolutely refuses to accept that there were not WMD's in Iraq - he does not care what anybody says - not the CIA, not the UN, not even if Bush himself, the ultimate reality denier, comes out and admits they were wrong, Dennis Miller will stick by his arm chair intelligence instincts and continue to maintain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were secretly ferried over the border to Syria before the invasion. I searched for the transcript or a YouTube video, but it's not up yet. I'll add links if they become available soon.

There's a blog devoted to this kind of denialist thinking. It's worth reading, especially the early posts that discuss the impenetrable bubble that denialists build around their convictions. Miller's is pretty obvious. He has posited a non-falsifiable explanation that will withstand any evidence to the contrary. He has transferred the problem of the absent evidence to another locale to which our intelligence has little access, and further, to a remote time that allows for the dispersal or destruction of the evidence in such a way as to make his conclusion immune to scrutiny even if we did invade Syria and rummage through their stuff.

So why should I care what Dennis Miller says on Fox "News" and what has this to do with science? I don't really care what he says, but I'm always concerned about the mind set that dismisses evidence in order to maintain a hard, unwavering, ideological stance. What's so difficult about drawing tentative conclusions based on the evidence and allowing for the possibility that your conclusions may need to be revised if new evidence surfaces to challenge those conclusions? It just seems so natural, so logical to me, yet an entire industry of pundits and a catastrophic republican administration have been built on the opposite way of thinking. There is some serious emotional weakness masking this macho approach. I can't help tying this in with religion - does religion answers our need, as a species, for that absolute certainty, or do we crave absolute certainty because of our religious upbringing?

I suspect it is the former and we're just stuck with a sizable segment of the population that can't get past it - but of course, I'm willing to change my opinion if evidence surfaces to suggest otherwise. I'm also willing to operate on a daily basis as if I can effect a change in people, if only those few individuals I interact with on a daily basis, my students.

Tacky People are Back

And they've got an early start this year. So far only one pile was seen today in the picture above, just under the 135th Street overpass to the Riverbank State Park. I ran over these but fortunately none of them stuck. Guess I need to start carrying a little broom.

Shrek the Turd

Oh my god, that was the worst. I don't have a lot to say about it, you almost get the sense that the writers/producers put this out with the title (Shrek the Third as opposed to simply "Shrek 3") as their own inside joke about how bad it would be.

Wait for someone else to buy the DVD and then borrow it if you really just have to see how bad it is. A few laughs here and there, but poorly written, plodding, and one of the lamest endings imaginable. My kids seemed bored at times and haven't talked much about it as they do when they really like a movie.

And what was with all the couples in the theater on a Saturday afternoon - no kids - watching the second sequel to a children's cartoon? Aren't there any adult films playing today? Get a life. (Yeah, I'm feeling a bit like an ogre myself today...)

Letter to Editor

I wrote a short, I mean really short, little letter to the editor at the NY Times regarding Michael Kinsley's review of God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Probably the kind of nit-picky little "correction" that would drive the author crazy, but I get that way sometimes.

I'm rather surprised that they e-mailed to say it will be published in the May 27th edition of the Book Review Section! I'll not reproduce it here, but I will come back and link to it when it's published next weekend.

As a public school science teacher I try not to have an opinion on religious matters and refuse to answer students' questions about my religious beliefs or lack thereof. I do occasionally hear grumblings among some students when we discuss topics that are at odds with one religious concept or another. As for religious explanations of natural phenomena, I stand firmly with the evidence and I don't mind making that point with students - if your religion says, for example, that the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old, that claim is demonstrably false. I don't push this idea on students, but as I have warned them, in my science classroom claims of fact, regardless of their source, will be subjected to scientific scrutiny. So if a student wants to argue against science by bringing in religious doctrine, I will engage, at least to a point. It doesn't happen often and I think most students are willing to close their ears when we discuss things they don't want to hear or compartmentalize their brains to learn the science, even if they reject it emotionally.

I would prefer that they do neither, but I don't know how to bring about a change in their mindset, other than discussing the science as matter-of-factly as possible and encouraging them to think generally in a logical manner.

Metro Bicycles on 96th Street

I won't be dealing with these guys anymore. I bought my bike there a couple of years ago. I've been in a couple of times for tune ups and adjustments and such. Today I went in with an urgent problem, one that occurred while I was riding, and they were not helpful. I was willing to leave the bike there and pick up Monday or whatever - they wouldn't take the bike, complaining that their basement was literally full of bikes that were sitting around forever waiting for owners to pick them up. Hey, that's not my problem, that's bad management on your part.

I had what I assume was a simple problem to fix - a couple of spokes on the real wheel popped and needed replacing. The wheel was wobbly to the point that I had to disconnect the rear brakes just to push the thing. I was the first customer in the store with a repair request and it was not busy. They would not fix it on the spot and said it would be noon before they could get to it. Again, I was flexible - more than willing to pick it up tomorrow or the next day. I just couldn't wait around till noon - that's 2.5 hours on top of the hour I had already sat around doing nothing waiting for the store to open.

So instead I cut my ride short and headed home, slowly, probably doing permanent damage to the wheel along the way. I guess given their location they'll do just fine without my business.

Republican Social Darwinism

A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin

They can't seem to get anything right on the right. There are the anti-science crowd who reject evolution in favor of creationism/ID:

For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design, which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an intelligent power could have created it.

I like (not) the language, "accepting Darwin," which of course parallels the Christian notion of "accepting Jesus." The Times really knows how to alienate its readers. I realize they are presenting the arguments from the perspective of the conservatives who think this way, but how about some quotation marks or something. Furthermore, using Darwin's name as a stand in for the theory of evolution, as the article does throughout, is already an editorial statement. The theory of evolution has advanced quite a bit since Darwin's initial formulation - for example, although the theory of natural selection remains intact, Darwin missed other mechanisms, such as genetic drift, and the entire science of heredity/genetics, etc.

I also suspect a good percentage of these "anti-Darwinists" are insincere in their rejection of evolution, and the wording in the above quote hints at it. They simply fear the consequences of the theory. There have been numerous articles in various publications to the effect that many conservative thinkers actually have no trouble with the soundness and validity of evolutionary biology, but maintain a distrust of knowledge in the hands of the masses. Religion is a tool of the powerful to keep the meek meek.

And then there are the modern-day social Darwinist who think the theory of natural selection supports their conservative ideology:

Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.

The rest of the article is the back and forth among the different conservative camps, the usual (anti Darwin): "Darwin led to Nazism AND communism" and (PRO!-Darwin): "Darwinism supports male dominated societies." Great, I can already see the liberal backlash against evolution when conservatives start openly "framing" it in that way.

I do like the final word from John Derbyshire at the National Review:

As for Mr. Derbyshire, he would not say whether he thought evolutionary theory was good or bad for conservatism; the only thing that mattered was whether it was true. And, he said, if that turns out to be “bad for conservatives, then so much the worse for conservatism.”

Wow, a conservative who's willing to go wherever the evidence leads - pretty refreshing statement in light of today's ideology-driven policy making.