Assorted Topics: 31 May 2010

Books: while in Chicago I made the mistake of stopping at Borders. I finished reading the book Idiot America by Charles Pierce ; his premise is that America has gone from being a “crank friendly” country to elevating cranks into the mainstream. He has three premises of Idiot America:
1. Someone’s expertise is determined by how popular they are (e. g., Michael Behe (and Intelligent Design crank) is considered on a par with the top biologists because his books have sold relatively well)
2. Anything is true if said loudly or passionately enough and
3. Something is considered true (or at least a valid alternative to be seriously considered) if enough people believe it.

Note: though many of my friends (and ok, me too) think of the right wing, this sometimes holds true among those considered left-wing (think of the bogus claim that there is a link between vaccines and autism). One might think of some of the absurd left wing academic claim (e. g., Newton’s calculus book may well be called “Newton’s Rape Manual“) but given the lack of popular support, this is basic crack-pot stuff; the stuff of cranks.

I am also half way though Mano Singham’s book God Vs. Darwin; Singham is a physics professor who has had experience in science education. He outlines the many cases in which religious groups have sought to retard the teaching of evolution in public schools or at least water it down. He proceeds with the assumption that evolution is an established fact (my favorite books on this are Jerry Coyne’s, Richard Dawkins’ and Doug Futuyma’s). I’ll report more when I am finished; this is a small book broken into easy to digest chapters (perfect bedtime reading) and is really focused on the battle to keep evolution out of the classroom.

For a pre-ID history of creationism, I recommend the book by Ronald Numbers. .

For a blow-by-blow refutation of creationism nonsense, I recommend this older book (1983) which was complied by Lauri Godfrey.

For an interesting history on evolution (e. g., how evolutionary theory evolved from Darwin’s day), I recommend this Barns and Noble Portable Professor Series CD set by Chandak Sengoopta.

For an enjoyable, easy to read but not insulting book on evolution which focuses on the connection between fish and humans, read Neil Shubin’s book. Note: it contains a section on a transitional form called the tiktaalik: it was a form between fish and tetrapods (e. g., it had a neck).

Speaking of evolution: Jerry Coyne discusses human cognition (e. g., the ability to think abstractly) here; the questions are along the lines of “is this trait the consequence of some natural selection” when, in fact, they would have produced little reproductive advantage, say, 50,000 years ago?

But Wallace’s question remains a good one, and is posed anew by Steven Pinker in a nice paper in a recent online issue of PNAS:

. . . why do humans have the ability to pursue abstract intellectual feats such as science, mathematics, philosophy, and law, given that opportunities to exercise these talents did not exist in the foraging lifestyle in which humans evolved and would not have parlayed themselves into advantages in survival and reproduction even if they did?

Pinker proposes an answer—that these feats are byproducts of selection for early humans to inhabit a “cognitive niche.” This answer may well be right, but at the very least will make you think. (You can find more discussion of the cognitive niche idea in chapter 3 of Pinker’s How the Mind Works and chapters 5 and 9 of The Stuff of Thought.)

What Pinker sees as the “cognitive niche” (a term invented by John Tooby and Irv DeVore) is a lifestyle of using both thought and social cooperation to manipulate the environment. [...]

I think Pinker’s theory is right—at least, it makes a lot more sense than other theories of human evolution. But, as always, there’s a big difference between thinking a theory is right and showing it’s right. Ironically, in the case of human evolution, we are prevented by our evolved morality from using our evolved skills to test theories about our evolved cognition.

He goes on to discuss the ethics of trying to test out this conjecture.

Social Criticism Miranda Celeste Hale isn’t impressed with trying to make the mundane profound:

I don’t throw the word “loathe” around lightly. But I loathe all things Sex and the City. Perhaps that’s because there are few things I find more boring or unpleasant than shopping, an activity that the show’s characters seem to find endlessly thrilling and fulfilling. Or perhaps it’s because, as exemplified by Carrie’s columns and silly voice-overs, the show attempts to turn banal, shallow, and utterly conventional activities into deep and profound “lessons” about the true meaning of being a woman in today’s society, implying that the characters are somehow defying the expectations of what a woman “should” be and are thus helping to make the world a more progressive and female-friendly place.

That is part of modern society, isn’t it?

SLAPP Lawsuits This sometimes happens: a company (or some powerful entity) screws someone over. The person complains via the internet (don’t use company X: they screwed me). The company files a lawsuit against this person, attempting to get them to take down their page, tweet or whatever. One of my favorite bloggers is an attorney who sides with the “little guy” in these cases; he is quoted in this New York Times article:

They consider the lawsuit an example of the latest incarnation of a decades-old legal maneuver known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or Slapp.

The label has traditionally referred to meritless defamation suits filed by businesses or government officials against citizens who speak out against them. The plaintiffs are not necessarily expecting to succeed — most do not — but rather to intimidate critics who are inclined to back down when confronted with the prospect of a long, expensive court battle.
[...]
Many states have anti-Slapp laws, and Congress is considering legislation to make it harder to file a Slapp. The bill, sponsored by Representatives Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, and Charles Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, would create a federal anti-Slapp law, modeled largely on California’s statute.

Because state laws vary in scope, many suits are still filed every year, according to legal experts. Now, with people musing publicly online and businesses feeling defenseless against these critics, the debate over Slapps is shifting to the Web.

“We are beyond the low-tech era of people getting Slapped because of letters they wrote to politicians or testimony they gave at a city council meeting,” said George W. Pring, a University of Denver law professor who co-wrote the 1996 book, “Slapps: Getting Sued For Speaking Out.”

Marc Randazza, a first amendment lawyer who has defended clients against Slapps stemming from online comments, said he helped one client avoid a lawsuit last year after the client, Thomas Alascio, posted negative remarks about a Florida car dealership on his Twitter account.

“There is not a worse dealership on the planet,” read one tweet, which also named the dealership.

The dealership threatened to sue Mr. Alascio if he did not remove the tweets. Mr. Randazza responded in a letter that while Mr. Alascio admitted the dealership might not be the worst in the world, his comments constituted protected speech because they were his opinion.

Note that Mr. Randazza is passionate enough about this area to actually oppose a politician (Rep. Grayson, D-FL) whose views he agrees with because Rep. Grayson went after a political critic who wasn’t following established campaign finance rules. I see this as purity trolling (it isn’t a fair political fight if only Democrats have to follow the rules) but what the heck.

The Silly
I love the quote between 1:15-1:20, that says that religious fanatics hate other religions more than they hate anything else.

Note to Mormons: this is “poe”; of course some of the criticism leveled at you in this video is supposed to be patently absurd. If you want real criticism here it is:

(serious point: if you think that you have the right to go around and attempt to proselytize, then others do too)

The funny This is just a short blub about what your e-mail address says about you. Note: I once had my own domain, but it kept getting stuck in other people’s “spam” folders so I abandoned it.

The bizarre:
This sounds like an “Onion” parody, but evidently isn’t:

Justin Davis noticed his friend Jarrod Wyatt acting strangely earlier in the day after drinking some wild mushroom tea. Davis left the Requa, California home, then returned early in the morning to pick up his dog. He instead found a grisly sight…

Wyatt, described as a 26-year-old cage fighter, was standing in the living room naked and bloodied with the brutalized body of his friend, Taylor Powell. Wyatt told Davis he was going to cut out Powell’s heart.

Davis left to find a pay phone and call police. When deputies arrived, they found Wyatt on the couch with Powell’s body. Most of his face had been removed. An eyeball was laying in the middle of the living room. There was a large cut in his chest, which Wyatt used to remove some of Powell’s organs, including his heart. He told deputies that he had thrown the heart into a fire.

Advertisement