Archives for May 2006

May 28, 2006

Intelligent Thought

A new book containing essays from 16 leading scientists, each in turn demolishing the Intelligent Design construct, has just now arrived on the bookshelves. Despite the scientific community's wise reluctance to be goaded into debate (see the Kansas kangaroo hearings), this book seems well conceived. While actual 'scientific' debate should be saved for the courtroom, the Discovery Institute's successes at shoving some sort of debate into to the public consciousness should be acknowledged in some way.

There is a shallow intuitive appeal to ID that even bright people succumb to, and this is partly due to the silence of science in the public arena. Science is paid short shrift by a cultural echo chamber whose deepest social concern at a given moment is the American Idol winner, so if science is skeptical of its chances of scoring in the public arena, it's for good cause. Science is boring and complicated--and highly resistant to the syllogistic treatment that makes for good TV. In that forum, science is doomed to lose most every debate, since ID is precisely the sort of appealing syllogism that works within the time constraints of TV. Even if science "wins" these debates in the eyes of the public, they lose for having to even withstand a comparison to an upstart that short circuited the peer review process and took its case straight to the public. The moderators to these debates are willfully obtuse and easily led to the false dichotomy... why not heed "the other side" indeed?

But a book of essays on ID might just be the perfect vehicle for the science side of the "debate." Anyone who is being primarily coached on the issue through a television is beyond hope, but book readers can be reached. The essay format probably helps its marketability. I hope it finds its niche and I look forward to reading.

Some samples from the essayists:

It should not, after all, be surprising if people who believe that all truth comes from an ancient text disagree with Darwin, whose ideas are in no ancient text. Rather than bemoaning the fact that fundamentalists disagree with Darwin, let’s ask a much more interesting and disturbing question: Why do so many non-fundamentalist theologians and religious leaders have no trouble incorporating Darwin into their worldview? —Lee Smolin

“Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all.” —Daniel C. Dennett, Philosopher

“Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hits you between the eyes with a stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity.” —Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist

“An evolutionary understanding of the human condition, far from being incompatible with a moral sense, can explain why we have one.” —Steven Pinker, Psychologist

Not only is ID markedly inferior to Darwinism at explaining and understanding nature but in many ways it does not even fulfill the requirements of a scientific theory. —Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist

The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously declared, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” One might add that nothing in biology makes sense in the light of intelligent design. —Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist

Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all. —Daniel C. Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist

A denial of evolution–however motivated–is a denial of evidence, a retreat from reason to ignorance. —Tim D. White, paleontologist

Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hits you between the eyes with a stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity. —Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist

The supernatural explanation fails to explain because it ducks the responsibility to explain itself.—Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist

Nothing indicates that people who believe that life arose by chance also believe that morality is haphazard. —Scott Atran, anthropologist and psychologist

An evolutionary understanding of the human condition, far from being incompatible with a moral sense, can explain why we have one. —Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist

To state that a given organ is so improbable that it requires design is just ill founded. The argument uses standard probability, which does not apply to the evolution of the biosphere. —Stuart A. Kauffman, theoretical biologist

We don’t have an intelligent designer (ID), we have a bungling consistent evolver (BCE). Or maybe an adaptive changer (AC). In fact, what we have in the most economical interpretation is, of course, evolution. —Lisa Randall, physicist

What counts as a controversy must be delineated with care, as we want students to distinguish between scientific challenges and sociopolitical ones. —Marc D. Hauser, evolutionary psychologist

Incredulity doesn’t count as an alternative position or critique. —Marc D. Hauser, evolutionary psychologist

Rather than removing meaning from life, an evolutionary perspective can and should fill us with a sense of wonder at the rich sequence of natural systems that gave us birth and continues to sustain us. —Scott D. Sampson, paleontologist

posted by scott pilutik at May 28, 2006 10:51 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

May 26, 2006

Tampons' Sinful Existence Obliterated from Pope's View

The Polish government and broadcast industry are getting ready for the Pope's visit by censoring anything that might offend His delicate sensibilities, such as liquor and lingerie ads... and tampon ads. While I'd certainly kick up dirt if my country pulled such a stunt, I recognize that some countries have to walk before they can run. And since the vast majority of Poland is Catholic, it's at least easy to understand the impulse. But even so--censoring tampon ads implies that a woman's menstrual cycle is a shameful vice on her part, as if a pox would fell the country should the existence of lady parts ever cross the Pope's mind. The only shame, however, is having evolved to a modern age while so many ancients still rule. That these particular ancients have a consistent history of subjugating women makes this action all the less surprising, but still pretty sad.

posted by scott pilutik at May 26, 2006 11:58 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

May 22, 2006

Faith-based statutory interpretation

The NY Times reports that Attorno Gonzo has once again moved the goal posts:

The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."

How unconfident is Gonzalez? Well, he appears to be suggesting that only if we squint (or stare unblinkingly at the statute for 10 minutes) can the statute's true hypnotic intent become discerned. It reminds me of an old Sunday School ritual/parable, where we were given a card with some shapes on it and were asked to tell us what we saw. Here's the card even:

Once the op-art magic was revealed (it says JESUS!!) it was clear that we young Sunday schoolers were expected to bathe in the warm glow of His Majestic Trickery. I imagined a televised contest between Doug Henning and Jesus (surely Jesus could whomp that wild eyed hippie if this card trick is any indication). The next year, however, a different Sunday school teacher dropped the identical trick on us and perhaps then the first ember of skepticism within me was fanned.

And so, just like my fraudulent Sunday school teacher, Gonzalez instructs us to read carefully an otherwise perfectly understood statute that has never been used to prosecute news reporters. Actually, he fails to mention any specific statute, but the Times seems to believe that he's relying on a never before imagined interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 798, which is a:

criminal statute which punishes anyone who knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information [concerning the cryptographic and communications intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government].

Gilmore v. National Sec. Agency, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7694 (D. Cal. 1993).

Gonzalez says that a careful reading would seem to indicate the possibility that it also applies to journalists. By triple-couching the issue in this way, you might think that Gonzalez wasn't entirely positive that he's not full of shit. And of all the hare brained legal theories he's run up the flagpole, this one reeks distinctly from the rest. While most of the legal encroachments Gonzalez espouses are intended to enlarge the definition of executive power, this appears to both enlarge the executive power definition at the direct expense of the press freedom--namely the Pentagon Papers case. The issue there was merely whether the executive authority existed to force a newspaper to withhold publication--if jailing the reporters had even occurred to Nixon, it was only a wet dream.

"I will say that I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect [and] the right of the press," Gonzales said.

"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see: the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity. And so those two principles have to be accommodated. In my judgment, they can be accommodated," he said. [emphasis added]

Note again the moving of the goal posts. The alleged freedom of the press has always been on shaky terrain, but the level at which intrusion into that alleged freedom has been historically tolerated by the courts has always been a lot higher than "criminal activity." And of course, the "criminal activity" in the back of Gonzalez's mind is the NY Times' revelation of the NSA's secret wiretapping program.

The First Amendment policy implications, which a court would weigh against the supposed national security interest in not having this program made public, could not be any more apparent where a newspaper reveals to the public that the government is spying on them in obvious contravention of the Fourth Amendment. This is the press serving its government checking function at the most primal level--where the government appears to be breaking the law.

Even if it is eventually found that the NSA program is entirely legal (and Congress is working its ass off to make this so in a post-hoc sense), the Times still had a perfectly reasonable belief that the government was breaking the law, as so much case law concerning the Fourth Amendment has told us.

Gonzalez is smart enough to know not to ever take this issue before a court. As in the Padilla case, he's using the law disingenuously (and people as pawns) to advance political and legal envelope pushing agendas. And perhaps to induce some chilling effect on the press. And there's no place quite as chilly as jail.

Update: well, not really an update, but better post than this one on the same subject by Glenn Greewald, who also notes the stark imbalance of interests:

These disclosures trigger public debate over highly controversial matters and, as a result, often harm the President politically. But none of them is an example of gratuitous disclosure of secret information intended to harm national security.

posted by scott pilutik at May 22, 2006 01:24 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

May 19, 2006

Vatican Sentences Serial Molester to the Comfy Chair

It must be the grimmest morning ever on the Orange Connecticut campus of the hyper-conservative Legionaries for Christ, as they are forced to reflect on, for eternity, the Vatican's decision to sanction their founder and leader, Father Marcial Maciel. Maciel had allegedly (and by allegedly I mean damningly clear to anyone willing to look) molested a number of teen and pre-teen seminarians at his control in Mexico during the Legionaries' salad days. Later, those molested had waged highly visible campaigns for justice, and their stories were documented by Jason Berry, Gerald Renner in the book Vows of Silence. Berry and Renner also told of the Vatican's refusal to take action, led notably by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, served as a final appeals board for all molestation complaints brought through canonical channels. Faced with overwhelming evidence, the CDF punted the case on more than one occasion, but never entirely cleared Maciel, leaving him hanging. It's not clear what happened in the intervening years to cause now-Pope Benedict's sanctioning of Maciel, but at least something finally came of it. It's also not clear what any of this really means. In typical Vatican fashion, the sanctioning of Maciel is vaguely worded and hard to term punishment.

The Vatican did not say specifically whether it found the abuse allegations against Maciel to be true. And it said that because of Maciel's age and ill health -- he is 86 -- it decided against a full-fledged church trial, or ''canonical process.''

Instead, it said the congregation had ''invited the priest to a reserved life of prayer and repentance, renouncing every public ministry.''

The lesson being that if you molest children, you may at some point (probably right before your death) be forced to sit in the corner and contemplate your actions. Grueling stuff.

UPDATE: NCR reporter John Allen appears to have broken the story yesterday, and and provides some deep background. And the Times updates the story to quote an influential Catholic writer John Wilkins: "But this is the founder of the Legionaries," he said. "This is a pretty devastating judgment for the Legionaries. For a new movement like that, the reputation and position of the founder is critical."

posted by scott pilutik at May 19, 2006 10:41 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

back

It's taken me far too long to reassemble the html and mysql strewn pieces of this site after AffordableHost Lost Everything. First they migrated me (and 14 other sites under my control) to another server without telling me this was even going to happen. The new server turned out to be a cruel stupid joke as sites would appear and disappear (but mostly disappear) at a daily whim. I was planning on moving off AffordableHost anyway, but was hoping things wouldn't fall entirely apart until after I finished finals. That didn't happen, of course. In fact they Lost Everything on the first day of finals, causing a two week headache that has yet to completely pass.

Now: I wait for last semester's grades; I exhale and wait for the next, which comes up fast--I'm taking a few summer courses, mostly to lighten the load during my last year, and partly to take a course only given during the summer: Religion and the Constitution. It's taught in tandem by two federal judges and the casebook thus far is promising. I'm still writing a paper on eBay and its secondary liability for trademark infringement problem.

I'll add more to this tomorrow, but it's getting late and my TCM movie is ebbing towards an awkward resolution. A 1940s New England town discovers its light skinned town doctor is black and mostly predictable reactions ensue. His kids haven't been told, however, a fact which has triggered pained reflections and schizophrenic outbursts. There, it's over. Apparently it was true and the kind New Englanders appear to have been shamed into constraining their initial hanging compulsion by the accepting sagacious priest. Good for New England and its braving a world which would permit a 1/8th negro to dwell in its midst.

Tomorrow I'll fix the blogroll so that it makes some sense. I want to add people I've been reading lately, such as Glenn Greenwald (for speaking consistently with perfect clarity on the unfolding NSA-Orwell merger), and prune some of the weeds.

Other topics I'll try to get to: the Vatican getting handed just desserts by China after selling Taiwan down the river; the recent NY Times article on just how deeply and truly upset the neovangelists are at Bush for not converting the nation to a complete theocracy yet (note how this argument tracks so closely to the recently voiced gripe by various racists that Bush has failed in his promise to provide a final brown solution) (what do they have in common you ask? The turning of the worm. The far far right (the ones who have controlled the debate til now) is upset that Bush has squandored his imaginary political capital before he had a chance to slaughter a host of domestic policy sacred cows they had marked for death. It has dawned on them that Bush's presidency is utterly unsalvageable by this point (and just how much of a millstone Bush will be this November), so they now scramble to undo his presidency before the liberals can get a crack at it this November. If they can manage the perception that they are the engineers of Bush's defeat it would allow their arguments to reign as the cause. Namely, that Bush didn't go far enough (as opposed to the widely acknowledged genuine impeachment bases, like incompetence, NSA-spurred constiutional violations, Iraq generally, Abu Gharib, Katrina, et al.). Saigon is falling and far from attempting to get out, they've decided to compete with the Viet Cong for the role of opposition. I think it's a doomed tack and clear evidence that they're in an almost pure panic state at the moment. Which is at least fun to watch.

I've been reading Saki of late. There are a few writers, and Saki is one of them, who make you a better writer just for having read them. From For the Duration of the War:

A Mouse that prayed for Allah's aid
Blasphemed when no such aid befell:
A Cat, who feasted on that mouse,
Thought Allah managed vastly well.

With those lessons to dwell on, I sleep.

posted by scott pilutik at May 19, 2006 02:58 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink