You had me at "Science is a fundamentally non-dogmatic and self-correcting investigatory process"

As many of you know, I've recently started a new job. I've been hired as part of a student program, which means that one of the fundamental requirements of the position is that I am a student. Fortunately, this is the case because I have begun a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) certificate program at Portland Community College.

I'm diving-in to one of the requisite courses this evening, Geology of the Pacific Northwest, and am immediately heartened by one of the introductory statements from the department and professor:

Regarding the teaching of basic geologic principles (such as geologic time and the theory of evolution), the Portland Community College Geology Department stands by the following statements about what is science.

** Science is a fundamentally non-dogmatic and self-correcting investigatory process. A scientific theory is neither a guess, dogma, nor myth. The theories developed through scientific investigation are not decided in advance, but can be and often are modified and revised through observation and experimentation.

** “Creation science,” also known as scientific creationism, is not considered a legitimate science, but a form of religious advocacy. This position is established by legal precedence (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1004).

** Geology instructors at Portland Community College will teach the generally accepted basic geologic principles (such as geologic time and the theory of evolution) not as absolute truth, but as the most widely accepted explanation for our observations of the world around us. Instructors will not teach that “creation science” is anything other than pseudoscience.

** Because "creation science", "scientific creationism", and "intelligent design" are essentially religious doctrines that are at odds with open scientific inquiry, the Geology/General Sciences SAC at Portland Community College stands with such organizations such as the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geological Institute in excluding these doctrines from our science curriculum.

It's so refreshing, in these times when the boorish and bigoted Rick Santorum can be considered a serious presidential candidate,* and when the center-right Mitt Romney -- who might otherwise be a quasi-decent fellow -- has to twist himself into logical pretzels so he can bend to the nonsense of the religious right, to read a statement at the beginning of the course that basically lets Christian fundamentalists know that they either need to open their minds for the class, or drop out. Very refreshing indeed!

----
* And so recently after the anti-intellectual, incoherent blathering of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann were considered serious front page news.

--

Notable people remembered on a nondescript moss-covered boulder at the end of a rarely-traveled country road

Izaak Walton League Memorial Plaque, Oak Island Game Management Area, Sauvie Island, Oregon, Nov. 19, 2011. Photo Seth S. Moody.

A few weeks ago, I went a-looking for a plaque in North Portland that was not to be found. A few days ago, my intrepid co-explorer Seth Moody and I braved the wilds of Sauvie Island to find another plaque. I'm proud to report that neither of us were disemboweled by the Sasquatch, and that we achieved our goal (and we have proof!).

The plaque we found was installed by the Oregon Division of the Izaak Walton League on September 14, 1957, to commemorate the life and work of Edgar F. Averill and William L. Finley. Both men were long-time members of the League, long-time active conservationists, and long-time water pollution abatement advocates.

Our trek to discover this plaque was somewhat of a pilgrimage for me. In my ongoing research on Willamette River pollution, I have discovered an extensive amount of information about the in-the-trenches work of men and women like Averill and Finley. With every discovery I am increasingly more appreciative of this work, and conscious of these people's relevance and resonance to the present day. I locate my spiritual center in nature and human consciousness, so, in my interpretation, Averill and Finley are two notable and fully human figures—among many—who illustrate the ways in which real people can take real actions in the real world to effect real and positive changes to benefit present and future generations. In my interpretation, this is precisely the realm of the highest spiritual practice.

I will explain what I mean and ground these men in the real world. Below you will find some details of the lives of Averill and Finley to help explain why their names are glued to a nondescript moss-covered boulder at the end of a rarely-traveled country road in an out-of-the-way place like Sauvie Island . . .

Is Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy anything more than cynical and intellectually shallow misanthropy?

I think I know the outlines of Ayn Rand's philosophy -- and I've even read Atlas Shrugged long ago, before I could make much sense of it -- but this morning's segment on NPR provides both a concise description of her philosophy and the very real ways in which the philosophy resonates in current politics.

Particularly after listening to the NPR segment, Objectivism seems to be a deeply cynical approach to governance that justifies the perpetuation of political and economic inequality and ignores the necessary and fundamental contributions that broader society and functioning governmental services provide to the general welfare (i.e., transportation & communications infrastructure, sanitation, public health, security, etc.). Objectivism ignores the fact that individual achievement is tied-up in complex ways with the strengths and weaknesses of broad society, and focuses instead on the fiction that fulling distinct individuals could possibly exist in a fully laissez faire system.

For these reasons, it's no surprise that the a significant slice of people with money and power (and their toadies) who are detached from daily knowledge of the complex iceberg upon which their money and power stands have the audacity and myopia necessary to advocate strongly for the dissolution of the very system that enables their success. From my vantage, Objectivism seems both intellectually and morally bankrupt, and it's rather frightening to me that so much of our current political debate is driven by advocates of this philosophy.

Or, am I missing something important about Objectivism, and my interpretation isn't correct?

--

When the un-repressed play the "I'm being repressed!" card

Jon Stewart had a great show on a few weeks ago that provides yet another example of a group with plenty of political, economic, and social power trying to play the "I'm being repressed!" card:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
GOP - Special Victims Unit
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

It seems even in the nearly-meaningless world of sports that representatives of certain groups who most certainly are not being repressed in the U.S. -- but who seem to have a deep-seated need to try to convince people otherwise -- are playing this card.

This is ridiculous. Here's an historically accurate representation of real repressive violence inherent in the system:

It Seems So Long Ago . . .

. . . because it was!

Cave bear skull placed atop stone in Chauvet cave, ca. 25,000 years ago.

 

Some time about 20,000-40,000 years ago, people created the amazing art inside the cave at Chauvet Pont d'Arc. About 20,000 years ago, the entrance to the cave was sealed, and it was not discovered until 1994.

The people who created the cave art were part of what we now refer to as the Aurignacian culture, a

toolmaking industry and artistic tradition of Upper Paleolithic Europe . . . marked by a great diversification and specialization of tools . . . The art of the Aurignacian culture represents the first complete tradition in the history of art, moving from awkward attempts to a well-developed, mature style."

Werner Herzog has made a 3-D film of the inside of this cave, "Cave of Forgotten Dreams." Read a review from Slate.com here, and listen to Terry Gross' interview of Herzog here. See images at the official Chauvet Cave website here.

Watch the trailer below . . .

This video clearly wasn't meant for my viewing

This video clearly wasn't made for my benefit, but a loved one forwarded it to me and we got a good chuckle out of it. What entertained us the most was the opening narration--and by "entertained" I mean I found it cringe-worthy to the extent that I just had to laugh before I pulled the rest of my hair out.

Bald Me.

The video illustrates some classic examples of specious arguments and logical fallacies, and because the narration includes the word "history" I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to respond to my loyal reader.[1]

Read my analysis of the narration below the fold, and let me know what you think, but be forewarned: it's about religion . . .

Atheism or Agnosticism? That is the question

Uh-oh, time to get deep and contentious!

Don't read this post if you're not ready to think about that sticky R-word, religion. If you're easily offended or firmly ensconced in a fundamentalism, this is not the post for you; go read something light, fluffy, and meaningless like this.

Still with me? Ok, you've been warned . . .

Answers to two Very Big questions

I can write with the utmost confidence and without qualification that you, reader, have asked yourself the following two Very Big & Important questions:

1) Certainly there are many alternate universes, but how good is the band Joy Division in the Playmobil universe?

2) What does God look like?

As soon as you look below the fold, lucky reader, you'll have answers to both pressing questions.

The End Times are Upon Us!

Uh-oh:

If there had been time, Marie Exley would have liked to start a family. Instead, the 32-year-old Army veteran has less than six months left, which she'll spend spreading a stark warning: Judgment Day is almost here.

Exley is part of a movement of Christians loosely organized by radio broadcasts and websites, independent of churches and convinced by their reading of the Bible that the end of the world will begin May 21, 2011. (source).

I thought that the End Times were coming on December 21, 2012?

Before this, I thought that the End Times were coming at Y2K?[1]

Oh, wait. The End Times were supposed to come even earlier than Y2K: some time between 1500 and 1800,[2] or even earlier[3].

Silly me. Of course, this time the End Timers are correct.

p.s., let's revisit this on May 22, 2011, and we'll have a good chuckle. If I'm wrong, I'll by you a beer.

Hop harvest 2010

I harvested our hops today!

What to think about Rajneeshpuram?

The Oregonian recently ran an interesting Q&A with Win McCormack, author of The Rajneesh Chronicles: The True Story of the Cult That Unleashed the First Act of Bioterrorism on U.S. Soil that's recently been re-released. Unlike the vast majority of article comments that I've read, the comments to this particular article are actually thought-provoking, and I recommend that you read them.

(For a bit more background on the Rajneeshees, Carl Abbott wrote the Oregon Encyclopedia entry "Rajneeshees.")

I don't quite know what to think about Rajneeshpuram . . .

The author of this poem gets an F-minus

I recently received one of those forwarded-forwarded-forwarded emails that causes me such great sadness. This was yet another email in which the author/sender's anger, frustration, and confusion in the face of economic and social change gets expressed in a way that does not attempt to unravel and understand complexity. Instead, the email text ignores important facts and makes statements that are uninformed at best, bigoted and racist at worst.

Feeling anger, frustration, confusion, etc., is natural. It often takes us a while to work through those feelings, which is also to be expected. Staying in that place of anger, frustration, and confusion, however, can be harmful to one's health, erode one's social ties, and undermine the basic levels of trust and respect that a functional democracy requires. Rather than try to foster understanding and generate solutions, these kinds of emails help perpetuate the kinds of ignorance that plague this country.

When I receive such emails, I am compelled to reply to all recipients. I do this as one small way to attempt to bring a deeper understanding to the issue; I also see my response as a moral obligation to speak up in the face of intolerance.

If you're interested, my response to the email is directly below the jump, and the email text itself is at the bottom of this post.

Ignorance by any other name would still smell as foul . . .

I've recently been alerted to the escalating bigotry associated with the possibility of having a mosque constructed at/near the former site of the Twin Towers in NYC (here and here). The most shrill voices in opposition to this project include people we have already come to know as ideologically-motivated blowhards who select and manipulate data in any way that will further their political agenda: Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

Mt. St. Joy Division

I mark every May 18 with at least a personal moment of silence for the untimely death of Ian Curtis and a reflection upon the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, both of which occurred on May 18, 1980[1].

The latter event I recall, to some degree: I was almost eight years old, living in Siletz, and I clearly remember scraping with my hand some of the light dust that had fallen on Mom's old blue Maverick when we were living in the double-wide on Willow Court. I recall Mom admonishing me for actions that could potentially harm the delicate finish on the highly valuable and pristine metallic blue Ford Maverick.[2] What a silly little boy was I! I retained a baby-jar-full of ash for many years, until I left home after graduating high school in 1990 and it disappeared in the unplanned and random dispersal of my belongings as I transitioned into and out of the U.S. Navy.

The former event -- Ian Curtis' death -- did not register with me at seven years old. I didn't get in to Joy Division until I was about 16. It was some time around the summer between my junior and senior years in high school, so that would have made it 1989. I recall clearly that one of my sister's friends' friends had made a set of mixed tapes titled "Music for the Moderns," or some such, and I, in turn, recorded these from her. On this tape were songs from certain bands and certain genres that subsequently have become the soundtrack of my life. More than that, actually -- songs and genres that have subsequently helped me define my place in the universe.[3]

Variable veracity

Earlier I discussed Biblical literalism in two posts (here and here). I just read an article in the Oregonian today that brought to my attention another approach to Biblical literalism that contributes much more of positive benefit to society than the work of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Family Research Council (FRC), and similar organizations.[1]

First, what does "literal" mean, anyway? One definition is "following the words of the original very closely and exactly." From this beginning, one could take the ICR's or FRC's path and selectively ignore or inflate evidence that that contradicts or supports, respectively, one's ideological interpretation and political goals. Alternately, once could start from this point and delve more deeply into the original words of the text as written in their original languages, seek to understand a fuller context of meaning at the time they were written, and investigate how words and meanings changed over time and in different places.

My very own Avatar review!

Preface

I just recently (and finally) watched Avatar, and I've been trying to craft this commentary for weeks now. Rather than dilly-dally any longer, I've incorporated some final thoughts and present it in all it's imperfections:

Introduction

There are many fascinating threads of analysis that course through the movie. I've read a small portion of reviews and analyses found in my not-at-all-systematic Internet meanderings. A conclusion I've drawn from this research is that I haven't been able to find much written about what seems to me two very important points that connect Avatar with its other relatives in the blockbuster fantasy and sci-fi categories: 1) Why is it (nearly) always the white guy who saves the day? 2) Why is violence so often the solution to violence?

On Literalism

A valued reader recently forwarded to me a link to this article, as part of a continuation of my process of investigating issues of science & trust and Biblical literalism.

The author of the forwarded link, Henry Morris III, D.Min. (1918-2006)*, provides one definition of "Biblical literalism." Before I get to this, however, I must refer to Morris' affiliation as the founder and* Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Creation Research. I could not find an "About" button on the ICR's website, so I ran a quick Internet search and found the following on Wikipedia:

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a Christian institution in Dallas, Texas that specializes in education, research, and media promotion of creation science and Biblical creationism. The ICR adopts the Bible as an inerrant and literal documentary of scientific and historical fact as well as religious and moral truths, and espouses a Young Earth creationist world view. It strongly rejects the science of evolutionary biology, which it views as a corrupting moral and social influence and threat to religious belief.

Morris provides a list of four bulleted characteristics that Biblical literalism is not, in his (and, by extension, ICR's) view, and contrasts these with five bulleted characteristics that do define proper literalism, in his view. Laying out these points in this way is intended to convey Morris' preferred definition in a clear and concise fashion. However, he falls far short of this goal in many ways.

On science & trust

Paul Kennedy over there on CBC Radio has a great program called Ideas that I highly recommend to all.

One of the featured series on the Ideas program is called "How to Think About Science." I listened to the first of these, Episode 1 - Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, the other day, and found it absolutely fascinating.

Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer wrote the 1985 book Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life.

Shapin & Schaffer's book asserts that scientific knowledge is not the pure exercise of unmediated reason, but is inherently social: "There are social institutions at work to produce what we know."[1] Robert Boyle established the fundamentals of experimental science in the mid-17th century by 1) setting up experiments to create unique circumstances; 2) calling in witnesses to see the experiments in action and then agree in writing to what happened; 3) documenting the entire process thoroughly in writing both to transmit the experimental results and so that other people could repeat the experiment.

Shapin & Schaffer find that Boyle saw his new approach to science as a method of bringing people together to debate issues without resorting to violence. In the midst of a period of great political, religious, and social conflict in Britain and other areas of Western Europe, Boyle presented his model as a way to establish the trust necessary to pose and resolve not only scientific questions, but political, religious, and social questions as well.

Shaffer stresses that this fundamental question about where to place one's trust is still central to civil society:

The basic question which collective public knowledge always has to solve in every culture is, Who shall I believe, and why? Almost everything anyone knows about the world, they know on trust. Almost all our knowledge is testimony. Very little of what we believe and know about the world is based entirely and absolutely on our own experience. And the social order requires that kind of mutual trust.

These ideas have got me thinking about the theme I perceive in the sources that have motivated me to write a couple of my previous posts:

** What do the gods believe? Exactly what I do, of course!!

** The Big Questions

The theme I perceive is two-fold: First, the propensity of human beings to believe what they want to believe, regardless of whether or not they have any kind of objective, direct support for their belief; second, the necessity of establishing some kind of trust to facilitate one's belief in something for which one doesn't have objective, direct experience.

On this second point, if a person hews to Catholicism, for example, this means, by definition, that this person trusts the institution of the church embodied in its representatives, and thereby tends to close the door to critical thinking on these issues. Without having experienced directly the things written about in the Christian Bible, and more than likely without having read the Bible in its original Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, the average adherent of Catholicism trust the church fathers to interpret and state the church's stance on family planning, evolution, etc.

As Schaffer describes in the CBC program, he discerns a similar dynamic in the field of science, insofar as people absolutely have to invest trust in scientists and the scientific method to believe things they cannot possibly perceive without the proper instrumentation and/or mathematical understanding (quantum mechanics, interstellar space, string theory, etc.). Schaffer stresses that being aware of this dynamic does not undermine the many demonstrated benefits and uses of science, but it does show science to be, among other things, a cultural product.

It seems to follow, then, that understanding a given religion or spiritual practice to be a cultural product does not necessarily undermine the benefits that some people get from this practice (as Joseph Campbell showed). It seems to me that conflict between science & religion (conflict in my own head as well as in the world-at-large) often springs from two things: 1) the assertion that science cannot answer spiritual questions and spirituality cannot answer scientific questions, and 2) that trusting representatives of a spiritual practice is somehow different than trusting the findings of scientists -- and this difference is fundamental and important.

----
[1] Simon Schaffer, from the CBC Radio program.

-

Fun close reading of Star Wars

There's a fun close reading of the Star Wars narrative over on EotAW.

One of the contributors linked to this interesting comparison between the Star Wars and Star Trek universes.

Good stuff.

-

What do the gods believe? Exactly what I do, of course!!

Below is part of a commentary from this blog (the commentary on this post is also worth reading):

For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" That's the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago.[1] Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people's mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God's attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God's will and their own opinions.

Religion provides a moral compass for many people around the world, colouring their views on everything from martyrdom to abortion to homosexuality. But Epley's research calls the worth of this counsel into question, for it suggests that inferring the will of God sets the moral compass to whatever direction we ourselves are facing. He says, "Intuiting God's beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber to validate and justify one's own beliefs."

----
[1] Nicholas Epley, et al., "Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 21533-21538.

-