My visit to the dentist should be quick, but I think it’s time to let readers talk amongst themselves. The topic of politics always engenders discussion—and strong feelings—so I might suggest that one. (I’d suggest recent books you’ve read, but I usually do that in conjunction with describing a book I’ve just read.) But there’s lots to discuss here. A few questions:
Is there any possibility for bipartisanship, as Joe promised so often during his campaign?
Is there any hope for meaningful immigration reform?
Are the Democrats too woke?
What do you like best about what Biden’s done so far?
What do you think is Biden’s most negative accomplishment so far?
Do you think a $1400 stimulus check given to each qualifying person will really do substantial things for Americans?
Is there any chance Andrew Cuomo will stay on as New York’s governor?
Is Beyocé overrated?
Did you know that Bob Dylan will be 80 on May 24?
Is there a worse word than “impactful”?
What is the best novel of all time? (Same for movies.)
Just a note: Adam Gopnik has responded to my last letter on the “Letter” website of The Conversation. The topic we’re discussing, as you can see in the title below, is “ways of knowing”, and you can see Adam’s latest response (“Letter 4”) by clicking on the screenshot.
There is a lesson to me about how science is done, a statement about Darwin’s view of human evolution that I find dubious (but will check), and some claims about how sociology is best done not through sociological research, but through literature. I shall respond in a week or so. In the meantime, read for yourself, and feel free to respond below, being aware that Adam is my friend and you must not be rude, though you can be critical of either of us.
I’ve more to say today, but I’m busy working on a response to Adam Gopnik’s latest letter in our exchange of views about the question “Are the methods used by science the only way of knowing?” As expected, Adam defended literature as a “way of knowing”, and I have much to say in response—too much to be shoehorned into 1200 words. Condense, condense, condense. But the exchange will go on for at least three letters each, or more likely four, and it’s both enormously fun and has also made me think hard.
Until this afternoon, then, I offer this post as a platform for readers’ discussion. You can talk about anything you want, but I’ll make a suggestion, which you don’t have to address:
How is the new administration doing? Clearly it’s miles better than Trump’s, but are there things you aren’t keen on? What about the expensive ($1.9 trillion) pandemic relief bill? Will $1400 stimulus checks to those making below a certain amount really constitute any substantial help? Does the minimum-wage increase belong in this bill? Is Joe’s administration too woke? How is he handling the pandemic?
It’s not a sin, you know, to find fault with an administration that you see as a tremendous improvement over the four-year nightmare that was Trump.
Adam Gopnik didn’t lose any time replying to my first argument, on the “Letters” site, that the empirical methods used by science are the only way to know the truth about the universe. (When I expressed surprise at how fast he answered, he said that, well, he’s used to working on a deadline. But he beat the deadline by five days: they expect only one letter a week.)
At any rate, you can read the first pair of letters by clicking on the screenshot below, and see Adam’s defense of literature as a “way of knowing.” I’m working on a reply now.
From now on I’m not going to call attention to each bout of our discussion because there will be at least six letters; the next thing you hear from me will be when the discussion is over. You can bookmark the site if you want to follow the interchange. But I did want to call attention to the first two “letters”, for they contain the gist of our respective arguments.
This is fun. I get to engage someone who knows literature in depth as well as more science than the usual critic, and we are friendly and civil.
For a few years I’ve had email conversations about “ways of knowing” with Adam Gopnik, who writes for the New Yorker and has also published several books. Our conversation has centered on whether science is the only way of knowing, or whether there are other ways of knowing as well. Adam defended the arts in this respect, and we’ve had some vigorous back and forths about whether music, painting, and literature in particular can be ways of knowing. I wanted to formalize our thoughts in a systematic way, and so I asked Adam to join me in a series of exchanges on the “Conversation” site of Letter. I just put up the first letter, which you can read by clicking on the screenshot below.
Our discussion critically depends, of course, on what we mean by “science” and “ways of knowing”. I’ve tried to define those carefully in my first letter, construing science rather broadly so that the topic becomes “the methods used by science” as ways of knowing. My position, which you’ll recognize if you’ve read this site for a while, is that yes, the methods of science are the only way of knowing. Religion is not, art is not, and ethics is not. I see philosophy and math as more circumscribed ways of knowing, since they convey knowledge about what holds within a system of axioms, but not about the universe. (I’m not a “mathematical realist”.) Of course philosophy and ethics are often informed by facts about the universe, and mathematics is an indispensable tool for understanding the universe.
Anyway, you can read my first thoughts (and definitions) in the first letter, posted on the site today (click on screenshot below). Adam will respond within a week, and we’ll each produce three or four letters in total, depending on how the conversation goes. I’m looking forward to this because scientists don’t usually get to engage in such a discussion with people who know a lot about the arts. I’m honored that Adam chose to join me in the exchange.
Mark your calendar for tomorrow: Matthew Cobb, sponsored by the groups indicated below, will be talking about the scientific contributions of Rosalind Franklin, and will, I’m sure, dispel many misconceptions that have accreted around her life. He’s kicking off a series of talks on women in science.
This talk will be virtual, but you have to register in advance to see it (it’s free), and then test your connection, as there are two ways to connect. (The site walks you through it.) Registration is here, or you can click on the screenshot below. And. . . you can even ask questions.
Note that it’s at 11 a.m. Eastern time or 5 p.m. Central European Time.
Here’s Matthew’s own summary:
It’s a 40 minute talk (already recorded), followed by live Q&A that might go on for some time. It’s about Franklin’s life, not simply the DNA years. It puts particular emphasis on her post-DNA work on viruses, and casts a rather different light on people’s impressions of what the double helix meant at the time. It doesn’t go into her love life nor do I call her ‘Rosalind’. She is ‘Franklin’ throughout. It was fascinating working on this and helped clarify my views of her – which are even more positive than they were before I began. Includes lots of photos, extracts from her letters to Watson, etc etc.
And here’s the official blurb for the talk:
If you’ve registered, you can go here and click on the “Already registered? Click here” button, or click on the screenshot below. Note on the webinar page there’s a button for asking questions. Put Matthew in the hot seat!
There’s not much interesting to write about today (I have one reading recommendation that I’ll post later): I haven’t found much intriguing science to talk about, the country is in turmoil with the pandemic and the upcoming election, and the big fracas about Trump’s Supreme Court nominee is fracturing America even further. Plus I’m dispirited, as are many. Yesterday we passed 200,000 Covid-19 deaths in America (four times the toll of the Vietnam War), the rest of the world is about to exceed a million deaths, and a spike in the pandemic may be in the offing.
So here’s a discussion thread, and I don’t want to proffer a topic. Maybe people want to kvetch about their woes, or maybe they want to tell us what bright spots they find in their lives. Or tell us what you had for dinner.
I was lazy yesterday, so I made what I call “poor man’s Peking duck”, my own invention. I cook a chicken breast and shred it. Then I slice green peppers into shreds, and place the shredded chicken in a flour tortilla with some slivers of pepper. I slather the contents with hoisin sauce, and then roll up and eat the tortilla. Real Peking duck, of course, is crispy duck skin or meat heaped inside a mandarin pancake (flour, but thinner than a commercial flour tortilla), with scallion shreds and hoisin sauce added. In my version, the chicken mimics the duck (poorly), the peppers mimic the scallions, and the tortilla mimics the pancake. But it’s easy to make and very good.
Though normally I have beer with Chinese food, I had to finish a bottle of 2016 Châteauneuf-du-Pape, and so I washed my concoction down with red wine. Not the best combination, but the wine wasn’t going to drink itself. After dinner I had my evening treat, which has become more abstemious and less calorific over the years. I’ve discovered that five plump and juicy Medjool dates (I buy these ones from Amazon, and they’re great) make a satisfying snack, even though they’re 40 calories per date (the recommended “serving size” on the bag is ridiculous: one date).
Or maybe you’d like to describe your last meal if you could have anything you wanted.
Or talk about something besides food. The world is wide.
I’m jammed this afternoon, and so am giving readers the chance to sound off on either the topic below or anything else of interest.
I didn’t watch the Democratic National Convention, as I already know I’m voting Democratic, but I did watch Michelle Obama’s speech on video, which I quite liked. Now many people are extolling last night’s very short virtual speech by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling her “the future of the Democratic Party”. (She was seconding the nomination of Bernie Sanders, an empty gesture but one that she was asked to do; I do recognize that she now endorses Biden.) Ocasio-Cortez, whom I don’t much care for, though some of her stands are okay, was given 60 seconds to speak but used 100 seconds, something that I, as a punctual, keeping-to-time kind of guy, don’t like.
Here’s her speech, for which she’s being touted as “The Future of the Democratic Party.” As far as I know about her legislative accomplishments, that future involves trading insults on social media, and we already have that. Over at HuffPost, people are falling all over themselves to tout her as a future President of the United States.
Well, unless she moves more toward the center (and yes, I want a President on the Left, but not the far Left), I’m not on board.
Discuss this, or discuss the convention in general. Was it successful? What were the highlights (I haven’t heard Jill Biden’s speech)? Does Trump even stand a chance now? RealClear Politics gives Biden a 7.6% advantage over Trump (below), and it’s holding pretty steady. (Remember, that’s a popular-vote poll, while the Presidency is decided by the electoral college. Still, Trump cannot win should these figures hold in November.)
I have little free time today, and am thus putting up a discussion thread. Readers can talk about anything they want. I’ll start with a suggestion, but you need not take it up.
There are a pair of articles in Psychology Today about how and why The University of California eliminated the SAT standardized achievement test despite its own council’s exhaustive reserach and recommendation that it be retained because it (especially in conjunction with high school grades) was one of the best predictors of college achievement (measured by grade point average, or GPA). You can read the two parts below, or just weigh in on the general trend of colleges and universities (and now graduate schools) eliminating standardized test results as criteria for admission.
Click on the screenshots to read:
Or discuss what you want: Kamala Harris, the pandemic, or whatever, but try to keep the discussion reasonably coherent.
This is an experiment born of my difficulty with braining today because it’s the anniversary of Grania’s death. Feel free to talk about anything. I’ll suggest some topics based on recent events or on New York Times or Washington Post articles, but you’re not at all required to even mention these.
A WaPo article on North Korea blowing up the liaison office with South Korea in the DPRK village of Kaeson, which served as an informal embassy. Is Kim Jong-un just bluffing for some unspecified gain. After all, war with South Korea (and perforce the U.S.) would destroy the country.
Here’s a Torygraph video of the destruction of the building:
Joyce’s Ulysses. Have you read it? (It took me about four tries, and I still like Dubliners (especially The Dead) better, though Ulysses is a world class novel—one that you need a guide to read.)
Ricky Gervais’s t.v. series After Life. I’ve managed to watch the entire first season and, like many readers, thought it was very good. To me it was marred at the end, however, by the seeming need to wrap everything up with a bow in a happy ending, with Tony getting a girlfriend, making peace with the people he didn’t like (even giving a treat to Diane Morgan), reconciling himself to living, and so on. It was an abrupt ending—too abrupt—and though I think two more seasons are in store, I don’t see the point of going on with the series given the plot resolution. Change my mind!