Category: discussions

Resurrected: Our conversation in Amsterdam

June 5, 2024 • 10:15 am

As I mentioned in the last post, after our discussion at the University of Amsterdam was canceled on grounds of Maarten Boudry’s and my sympathies for Israel, the sponsors who brought us to Amsterdam kindly had the discussion restaged in an empty room and professionally filmed.  I haven’t listened to the whole 80-minute discussion as I can’t stand to see and hear myself, but as I recall it went smoothly, even without an audience.

The filming and appended notes on the screen are due to videographer David Stam, who did a great and professional job, clarifying any references that aren’t spelled out.

To reiterate, the subject of the discussion was a paper by myself and Luana Maroja published in the Skeptical Inquirer, “The ideological subversion of biology.” If you watch the video, you’ll see that the topic of the war and Israel wasn’t even raised.  We did range beyond the ambit of the paper, for we talked about biology, philosophy, and other topics, but you’ll see that we were deplatformed for something we didn’t even intend to mention.

Here are David’s notes on the video:.

Welcome to an eye-opening discussion on “The Ideological Subversion of Science” featuring evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, philosopher of science Maarten Boudry, and embryologist Michael Richardson. In this thought-provoking video, our distinguished panel delves into the growing influence of ideology on scientific research and education. They explore how societal pressures and cultural trends can distort scientific integrity, the implications for scientific progress, and the importance of safeguarding objectivity in the pursuit of knowledge. Join us for a conversation that champions the true spirit of scientific inquiry.

Em. Prof. Dr. Jerry Coyne, Evolutionary Biology at University of Chicago
Dr. Maarten Boudry, Philosopher of Science at University of Ghent
Prof Dr. Michael Richardson, Evolutionary Developmental Zoology at University of Leiden

The moderator, who did an superb job of keeping the discussion going, is Gert Jan van ‘t Land.

Bill Maher and Fareed Zakaria; Mo Dowd on Maher and his book

May 27, 2024 • 12:30 pm

I’m not well today: a combination of a lingering cold and severe insomnia last night has laid me low (if I have to give up wine to sleep, I’ll conclude that life isn’t worth living). But I did finish my essay about our Amsterdam deplatforming, written with Maarten Boudry, that we’ll publish in another place when the video of our discussion goes up. (It was filmed in an almost-empty room in a secret location in downtown Amsterdam, and turned out well.)

In the meantime, exhausted from writing, I’m going home and have little to offer today. Below are two items. First, a ten-minute discussion of Bill Maher with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria about Maher’ss new book. This is a very different discussion from the one Maher had with the women on “The View”, and shows that he’s deft on his feet as well as thoughtful. Among the topics: why the protests of the Sixties differ from the pro-Palestinian protestors of today, why he makes fun of the Left so often, sex and gender, “healthy at any weight”,  incels, the difficulties of dating these days (men are losing their ability to communicate), growing tribalism, why the Right has become so crazy, and Maher’s prediction that, even if Trump loses this fall, he won’t concede the election.

Maureen Dowd has a long piece in the NYT about Maher and his book (mostly about Maher), and it’s a good read. Click the headline below for an archived version:

An excerpt:

He seems to make more news than all of the other night-owl comedians combined, no doubt because he breaks free of comedy’s congealed partisan worldview. Unlike most other political commentators, he does not pander to the left or the right.

“Let’s be honest,” he said. “The only thing that the two parties really have in common is that they’re both hoping their candidates die.”

Sometimes Fox (which he says he rarely watches) loves him and MSNBC is mad at him, and sometimes it’s the reverse. In a world awash in disinformation, Maher gives blunt, practical opinions, not filtered through ideology or likability, on everything from “Barbie” to Bibi to babies — and why he never had them.

“Why can’t everybody live in my world, in the middle, where we’re not nuts?” he wondered, ordering a shot of tequila to go with his margherita pizza. The dedicated health freak, opponent of treating obesity as body positivity, and Ozempic skeptic has a small bottle with a dropper, dripping into his sparkling water a product called Jing, a bubbly water enhancer with no aspartame, gluten or carbs.

Maher is constantly asked why he makes fun of the left more than he used to.

“Yes, I do, because they’re goofier and more obnoxious than they used to be,” he told his guests, Frank Bruni and Douglas Murray, on his show recently. “They also just became weirder.”

“I’m a comedian,” he told me. “I’m going to go where the ridiculous is.”

. . . At dinner, we talked about the eruption of antisemitism.

“It’s hard to get your head around the thought of people yelling ‘Death to America’ on American soil,” he said.

He is disgusted with progressive students who, as he writes, cheer on Hamas to preside over a country with few constraints against sexual harassment, spousal rape, domestic violence, homophobia and child marriage.

He calls elite universities “the mouth of the river” from which nonsense flows, producing “American-hating hysterics devoid of knowledge. If they had any knowledge about the Middle East or what apartheid really means or genocide, would they be on the side of Hamas, really?”

In ancient courts, the jester could speak the truth to the king with impunity, like Shakespeare’s fools. But, given safe spaces and trigger warnings, being a jester isn’t what it used to be.

“He survived his first cancellation,” said Tina Brown, the media duchess, “and now has become a warrior for the rest of us, absolutely refusing to be careful.”

All I can say is that the more I listen to Maher, the more I admire him. Maybe that’s because we align politically, but he’s also snide and funny as hell.

 

Bill Maher on “The View”

May 26, 2024 • 12:40 pm

YouTube hasn’t yielded Bill Maher’s comedy segment from his  latest “Real Time” show, but I found something nearly as good: his conversation this week with the ladies of “The View”. There are two parts, which I put in reverse order, but both show that Maher’s appeal isn’t just from his (or his assistants’) comedy scripts, but also a general eloquence and thoughtfulness. There’s no script here; he just argues and discusses wokeness, the Presidential candidates, and the war in Gaza with five outspoken women.

I found the second part of Maher’s appearance (10 minutes) more interesting, and so put it first part (9.5 minutes). Watch in reverse order if you want to see the whole thing. All of it’s good.

 

What happened to Jon Stewart?

Amsterday 6

May 18, 2024 • 11:00 am

Sadly, I’m leaving tomorrow morning to fly back to the states, but all my work got done. Though we were deplatformed by the Betabreak group at the University of Amsterdam (now bleating that they really did it for “safety reasons”), the three of us plus a moderator managed to professionally tape our discussion on the Ideological Erosion of Science in a private and “safe” location. The discussion went well, and it should be on YouTube in about a week. My talk in Tilburg seemed to go okay, too, so the formal part of my commitment has been satisfied.

Today we went around downtown, which was crazy with tourists. It was a Saturday and a lovely day, but apparently there is no time of year now when Amsterdam isn’t overflowing with tourists: American, Asian, and European. If you come, get your tickets to the Rijksmuseum, Anne Frank House, and Van Gogh Museum as early as you can—preferably a few months.

I took a bunch of photos today, including Palestinian protestors in the citty, a “hidden” Catholic church built when Amsterdam was largely Protestant, a rubber duck shop, some typical Dutch food, and other marginalia.  Those will be up when I get back home, so today I’ll show photos from yesterday.  Much of the day was spent creating the discussion we were supposed to have at the University of Amsterdam on the Coyne and Maroja paper.

Setting up for the videotaping (photo by David Stam, standing on left). Seated to right: Maarten Boudry, a philosopher at the University of Ghent, me, Geert Jan van’t Land, one of my hosts and the moderator, and Michael Richardson, professor of evolutionary developmental biology at the University of Leiden. Standing at right, one of Stam’s taping assistants; I don’t remember his name. Maarten was a collaborator on the only philosophy paper I’ve ever written on anything.

Below: another Stolperstein I encountered walking to an evening concert.  These, you’ll recall, are placed in front of the houses of people who lived there but were taken away by the Nazis and sent to their deaths in the concentration camps. So spare a thought for Victor Romun, taken away from his house on September 25, 1943 at age 56, sent to the holding camp at Westerbork in the Netherlands and then sent to Auschwitz, where he lived only four months, dying (or murdered) on January 31 of the next year.

Yesterday evening we went to a wonderful concert at one of the world’s great venues for classical music, the famous Concertgebouw.  As for the building, Wikipedia notes:

The Royal Concertgebouw (Dutch: het Koninklijk Concertgebouw, pronounced [ətˌkoːnɪŋkləkɔnˈsɛrtxəbʌu]) is a concert hall in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The Dutch term “concertgebouw” translates into English as “concert building”. Its superb acoustics place it among the finest concert halls in the world, along with Boston’s Symphony Hall and the Musikverein in Vienna.

The acoustics truly were superb. We had great seats about 15 rows back in the middle of the floor, and it sounded as if we were surrounded by music.

The Concertgebouw is in the Museum Quarter, and here’s a panoramic photo of the area, showing not only the concert building, but the van Gogh Museum and the Rijksmuseum. You’ll have to click twice and scroll to see it properly:

The concert program, which was wonderful, with Vilde Frang, a young Norwegian violinist, doing the long Shostakovich violin solo. I loved the concert even though I’m no expert in classical music.

The Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra on stage, ready to go. It’s considered one of the world’s finest orchestras.

On the way home I saw THE WORLD’S SMALLEST CAR, or at least one that appears to be. It holds only a single person, and I suppose could be seen as a covered motorcycle:

Finally, a typical Dutch food, Hagelslag, known in America as “sprinkles,” and used to top cakes and cupcakes. In the Netherlands, however, it’s a common topping for buttered toast for breakfast. Here’s what was in front of my plate. I had heard of it, so of course I tried it.

My crude translation of the Dutch, with some expert help:

“Did you know that Hagelslag is a typical bread covering in the Netherlands, and that it is not sold in other countries? And that in Belgium Hagelslag is known as ‘mouse turds’?”

I may be a bit off here, but not by far.

My morning toast with Hagelslag. It wasn’t bad at all, though I prefer jam:

Press release about our cancellation

May 14, 2024 • 9:45 am

Below is the press release (in two languages) describing the cancellation of our discussion by a group at the University of Amsterdam. That cancellation (or “deplatforming”) is described in my previous post.

This press release was sent out by the people who came together to organize my visit to the Netherlands involving two scheduled events. This visit was a private initiative, not the initiative of an organization.

The original is in Dutch, but there’s also an English translation, and since most readers here are anglophones, I put the latter version first.

In English:

Meeting at UvA with American professor emeritus Jerry Coyne and Maarten Boudry cancelled due to Palestine position

Earlier I had invited you to the meeting of betabreak, the discussion platform of the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Computer Science (FNWI) of the University of Amsterdam about a recent article by Dr. Coyne in the journal Skeptical Enquirer (https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/06/the-ideological-subversion-of-biology/). The meeting was to take place this Friday in the FNWI-UvA building Science Park 904. Participating in the discussion would be, in addition to Jerry Coyne: Maarten Boudry (Flemish philosopher and skeptic) and Michael Richardson (Professor of Evolutionary developmental zoology at Leiden University).

The meeting’s organizer, Betabreak (https://www.betabreak.org/committee), called off the meeting because of Coyne and Boudry’s Palestine position. Betabreak indicated that many members of committee of Betabreak were uncomfortable giving Jerry Coyne and Maarten Boudry a stage given their position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Betabreak’s committee also expressed concern about the impression a debate with Coyne and Boudry would make on Betabreak’s organization. Betabreak’s committee concluded that the debate with Boudry and Coyne could not take place given the current political climate.

Jerry Coyne and Maarten Boudry will discuss the article in the Skeptical Enquirer at another location on Friday without an audience. A video recording of this conversation will be made available via the Internet. The discussion participants are dismayed that the decision of betabreak of the FNWI of the UvA (https://www.betabreak.org/) to cancel a scientific discussion because of the political-societal views of the discussion participants leads to the fact that the discussion will take place in a private residence.

You are welcome to attend the conversation between Jerry Coyne and Maarten Boudry. Jerry Coyne and Maarten Boudry are available for questions about the situation.

More information about Jerry Coyne and Maarten Boudry can also be found on their website/weblog:

– Jerry Coyne: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/

– Maarten Boudry: https://maartenboudry.be/category/blog

In Dutch:

Bijeenkomst op UvA met Amerikaanse emeritus hoogleraar Jerry Coyne en Maarten Boudry afgezegd vanwege Palestina standpunt 

Eerder had ik u uitgenodigd voor de bijeenkomst van betabreak, het discussieplatform van de Faculteit der Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica (FNWI) van de Universiteit van Amsterdam over een recente artikel van dr. Coyne in het tijdschrift Skeptical Enquirer (https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/06/the-ideological-subversion-of-biology/). De bijeenkomst zou aanstaande vrijdag plaatsvinden in het FNWI-UvA gebouw Science Park 904. Aan het gesprek zouden deelnemen naast Jerry Coyne: Maarten Boudry (Vlaams filosoof en skepticus) en Michael Richardson (Professor of Evolutionary developmental zoology aan de Universiteit van Leiden).

De organisatie van de bijeenkomst, Betabreak (https://www.betabreak.org/committee), heeft de bijeenkomst afgeblazen vanwege het Palestina standpunt van Coyne en Boudry. Betabreak gaf aan dat veel leden van committee van Betabreak zich er niet prettig bij voelden om Jerry Coyne en Maarten Boudry een podium te geven gezien hun standpunt over het Palestijns-Israëlische conflict. Het committee van Betabreak gaf aan ook bezorgd te zijn over de indruk die een debat met Coyne en Boudry zou maken over de organisatie van Betabreak. Het committee van Betabreak komt tot de conclusie dat het debat met Boudry en Coyne niet kan doorgaan gezien het huidige politieke klimaat.

Jerry Coyne en Maarten Boudry zullen op een andere locatie op vrijdag zonder publiek met elkaar in discussie gaan over het artikel in de Skeptical Enquirer. Van dit gesprek zal een video-opname worden gemaakt die via internet beschikbaar zal worden gemaakt. De gespreksdeelnemers zijn ontsteld dat het besluit van betabreak van de FNWI van de UvA (https://www.betabreak.org/) om een wetenschappelijke discussie af te blazen vanwege de politiek-maatschappelijke opvattingen van de gespreksdeelnemers er toe leidt het gesprek in een privé woonhuis zal plaatsvinden.

U bent van harte welkom om aanwezig te zijn bij het gesprek tussen Jerry Coyne en Maarten Boudry. U kunt Jerry Coyne en Maarten Boudry dan ook vragen stellen over de situatie.

Meer informatie over Jerry Coyne en Maarten Boudry kunt u ook vinden op hun website / weblog:

Iris and discussion

May 11, 2024 • 10:30 am

I’ll be off for O’Hare soon, but heres a photo of Irises I took on my way home. I don’t know when you’ll hear from me again, but before that I’ll have had a belly full of french fries with mayo or peanut sauce.

In the meantime, feel free to discuss politics or whatever you want. I’ll throw out some starter questions, but you can ignore them. I would, however, like to know the readers’ opinions. Three of the four questions are about the war, as that’s been much on my mind.

a.) What the deuce is Biden up to with Israel? He does know that the IDF considers Rafah important in getting rid of Hamas, right? So why is he trying to prevent a serious military operation there? Does he want Hamas to win and maintain power?

b.) The UN has revised the death toll of Gazan civilians, reducing it considerably and halving the number of women and children killed). Given that, and given the fact that the new ratio of civilians killed to Hamas fighters killed is a bit more than 1:1; AND given that that ratio is lower than any similar ratio in modern warfare (the U.S. is a grim 3:1 in its Middle East conflicts and other fights go up from them, AND, given that these deaths can be imputed largely to Hamas, who encourages Gazans to die for propaganda purposes and uses them as human shields, AND that Israel takes steps to reduce the civilian death toll, including warning civilians of strikes and providing humanitarian aid, then why is the death toll of Gazans considered way too high for this war? So high, in fact, that mostly the whole world hates Israel, falsely accusing it of genocide because of the number of civilian deaths. Is there supposed to “death equity”, so that for every civilian killed and Israeli should die as well? This truly baffles me.

c.) Why is Israel so prominent among conflicts given that in other places, like Yemen and Syria, far more people have died and there is much more starvation? Why don’t we hear more about Syria, where the forces of Bashar al-Assad have killed an estimated 300,000 people, mostly Muslims? This isn’t mere “whataboutery,” for the conflict there is ongoing, serious, and has killed more than ten times the civilians that have died in the war between Israel and Hamas.

d.) Is Donald Trump ever going to be convicted of anything? Will he win this fall’s election, whether or not he’s found guilty? Why do so many Americans vote for a person whose mental illness is palpable, and on display every day?

I will check from O’Hare, and I’m hoping for a plethora of comments.  Say whatever you want.

Discussion question: What does the U.S. want with Israel?

March 18, 2024 • 11:38 am

It’s one of those weeks when I don’t really have a lot to say based on what’s happening, nor any juicy articles to analyze or criticize. Instead, I’d like to start a discussion.

Here’s the question, which could be phrased in several ways: “Does America want Israel to lose the war with Hamas?” Or, “Does the U.S. care much if Israel loses the war?” or, perhaps the least debatable question: “Is the U.S. doing things that will help Hamas win the war?”  (I think the answer to the last question is “of course,” though the U.S. may not be doing it with that intention.)

One thing is for sure: if Israel is to win, Hamas must be eliminated and there can be no cease-fire long enough to enable them to resume power.  You don’t win a war with terrorists without destroying their organization,

Yet here’s what we see (or rather, what I see)::

  • Chuck Schumer is calling for elections to depose Netanyahu, right in the middle of a war. This is us interfering with a democracy, and is inappropriate. I believe Netanyahu, now that the war has begun, is doing a pretty good job. I’m pretty sure he’ll be deposed when the war is over, and I’m not a big fan of his. But to call for his replacement now?
  • Israel is allowing as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as arrives; it’s certainly not stopping humanitarian aid. But of course the world thinks otherwise. I’ve never seen a country act this way; certainly during Vietnam the public didn’t demand that we provide humanitarian aid to the North Vietnamese or South Vietnamese civilians fighting us.  And in that case the U.S. did very little to avoid killing civilians; indeed, they wiped out whole villages of civilians indiscriminately.
  • Biden and many others are demanding that the IDF do not take Rafah (remember, Israel does have a plan to evacuate civilians there). But if Israel doesn’t take Rafah, then Hamas will stay in power for sure.
  • During last night in Gaza, the IDF attacked Al-Shifa hospital. Hamas had returned there to resume its occupancy, and fired on Israelis approaching the hospital.  During the ensuing fight, many terrorists were killed as well as one IDF soldier, but no civilians were killed. The IDF even brought doctors in case patients needed extra care. Yet the world is baying at what Israel did.  How dare they go back into a hospital. Apparently the IDF should have let Hamas take over the hospital, but of course Hamas, in doing so, was committing a war crime. Nobody worries about Hamas’s war crimes, though; once again Israel is held accountable.
  • Blinken has proclaimed that it should be Israel’s highest priority to ensure the safety of Palestinian civilians.  That’s not what you say to an ally prosecuting a war and already trying to kill as few civilians as possible.
  • The death tolls provided all come from Hamas, which doesn’t distinguish between terrorists and real civilians. And “children”, to Hamas, are anybody under 18, which can and does include many members of Hamas. Yet these figures are all taken to represent “civilians.”  I suspect, but don’t know, that they include many more terrorists than the media implies.
  • The U.S. has blown hot and cold on a ceasefire. If there is a permanent ceasefire now, Israel has lost, for Hamas will regroup, recoup, and take up power in Gaza again, as well as continuing to steal aid sent for humanitarian reasons
  • The U.S. has floated the idea that postwar Gaza should be governed by the Palestinian Authority, one of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard. The P.A. is a corrupt, Jew-hating, and terrorist-promoting organization, still handing out money to terrorists who kill Jews—the “pay for slay” program.
  • Americans are touting the two-state idea as a “solution.” It is not a solution—at least not right now. It is a recipe for more enmity and killing. Palestine never wanted it (it wants one state run by Arabs), and now Israel doesn’t want it, either. Only the addle-brained thinks that this will bring peace.

And, of course, we hear little from anybody about the war crimes or perfidies of Hamas.  Americans seem willing to exchange 1,000 Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails for what must be now only about 100 hostages. Does anybody think about whether that’s a fair deal? Further, all the news about casualties we read in the news comes from Hamas, but is presented as “the facts.”

These matters make me wonder what the deuce the U.S. intends by behaving this way. What does it want? You may respond that Israel, on its side, has no plan for how to deal with postwar Gaza, and perhaps that’s true, though I’m pretty sure this is an object of serious discussion in the war cabinet. But Job One is for Israel to win the war, and it can do that only by taking Rafah and, as it does so, kill as few civilians as possible. (Of course we see little in the media about the Hamas strategy of trying to get Palestinians killed to sway world opinion. People who think that Hamas is desperate to prevent the killing of Palestinian civilians are simply wrong. Part of Hamas’s strategy is to gain the world’s sympathy by getting its own civilians killed and then calling attention to that.)

In the end, does the U.S. not want Israel to win this war, or achieve only a partial victory, if that’s even possible?  Sure, Biden, conscious of the votes he needs from young pro-Palestinian Americans as well as Muslim-Americans, is constantly hedging his bets, but all the points above have not only baffled me, but, as someone on Israel’s side, produced a real emotional and political roller-coaster ride.

Discuss!