Monday: Hili dialogue (and Leon lagniappe)

September 14, 2015 • 6:30 am

It’s Monday, and a week from today I leave for Poland and Sweden, returning home via Atlanta. Lots of packing to do, including presents for Hili (noms, of course) and her staff. In this day in history, the Toronto Blue Jays set a record for the most number of home runs his by a team in a single baseball game. Can you guess how many? The answer is below Leon. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Malgorzata is reading a murder mystery to relax, and Hili is helping:

M: Have you figured out who the murderer is yet?
Hili: Probably all of them.

P1030367

In Polish:
Małgorzata: Wiesz już kto jest mordercą?
Hili: Chyba wszyscy.

*******

And Leon has a complaint about the end of the weekend, although I don’t know why cats would care:

Leon: I think Monday is approaching:

12004819_1022034704483797_1944285513182284371_n

Answer to question: Ten home runs.

Two debunkings of widespread woo: Ouija boards and homeopathy

September 13, 2015 • 1:45 pm

Here are two nice videos that constitute empirical tests of the efficacy of woo.

The Ouija board study, presented by National Geographic, is a nice example of how a simple experiment, using only blindfolds, can completely trash a widespread (but not very harmful) form of woo.

And from deadstate.org, we have a video in which “Scibabe” tests homeopathic claims:

The Science Babe, or “SciBabe” for short, wanted to expose this practice for the bullsh*t that it is — by gulping down 50 homeopathic sleeping pills. She’s also started a petition on Change.org calling for companies like CVS Health and Walgreens to take homeopathic medicine off their shelves.

“People will still buy products from your stores,” the petition states, “but instead they’ll buy products that actually work with proven claims.”

I’ll have more to say about the phenomenon of “science babes” tomorrow.

Why do many atheists hate the New Atheists?

September 13, 2015 • 12:00 pm

One thing I don’t fully understand is the depth of rancor that many atheists have towards the “New Atheists,” especially people like Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens. We’ve all seen it, and I’ve written about it many times. One example is a new book by An Atheist Who Shall Not Be Named, The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists, discussed on The Godless Spellchecker‘s site. (Hemant Mehta has just written his own take on the book.)

The critique of New Atheists by other atheists seems to consist largely of ad hominem accusations, distortions of what they’ve said (Sam Harris is particularly subject to this), and, most of all, complaints that they dare criticize religion publicly. As Nathaniel Comfort said in the comments section of his own Nature review of Dawkins’s new autobiography:

I do say. You’re making an absurdly large leap and insulting the many atheists (including myself) who are perfectly happy to leave people alone with their views if they let me alone with mine. Dawkins, et al. are evangelists for atheism. That’s what I’m criticizing. Just as not all straight people are homophobes, not all atheists are eccesiophobes. And you can be scientific without being scientistic.

This is an explicit statement that if you publicly and passionately criticize religion, you’re the Wrong Kind of Atheist. You’re insulting the Quiet Atheists.

Now I’m perfectly happy accepting that it’s not the style of some nonbelievers to openly declare their atheism, much less to publicly criticize religion. But why go after the ones who do, especially when they’re simply articulating the reasons why the non-vociferous atheists have rejected religion?

I can think of a couple of answers. The first is simple jealousy: some atheists haven’t achieved the fame or public profile of people like Hitchens, and so attack their character rather than their arguments. It’s also a way to get attention for yourself if you feel unappreciated.

The second is the feeling by the Quiet Atheists that “New Atheists don’t represent me,” and so they must be called out. But since when have prominent New Atheists ever said they represent all atheists? They are representing their own views, and I doubt that any of them have said that they speak for all nonbelievers.

The attacks by atheists on New Atheists stand in strong contrast with how religionists act when they disagree. Christians, for instance, don’t spend lots of their time attacking the character and arguments of other Christians like William Lane Craig or Pat Robertson. Yes, I know that there is some criticism along those lines. But I can’t think of a Christian or a Muslim who makes their living writing article after article criticizing individual coreligionists. Nor, do I think, do believers try to damage other believers by consistently misrepresenting their positions or questioning their characters. When they do engage in such criticism, they’re usually straightforward about their disagreements, not prone to distortion, and are rarely snarky.

Finally, believers who do criticize coreligionists—Maajid Nawaz and his criticisms of radical Islam, for instance—usually don’t engage in character assassination or personal attacks: they go after what they see as the palpable dangers of extremist faith.  If your response is that “well, some atheists see New Atheism as extremist, too” I’d reply that the New Atheists aren’t even close to damaging society in the ways that Boko Haram or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his ISIS organization are. New Atheists just write books and give talks; they don’t urge their followers to kill people, forcibly impose their views on others, or urge the murder of those they oppose.

These are just some tentative thoughts, but the rancor of atheist criticism about New Atheists repeatedly surprises and saddens me. And I don’t fully understand it. Readers are invited to share their opinions below.

h/t: Barry

The University of California threatens freedom of expression

September 13, 2015 • 10:15 am

Over at his Washington Post site “The Volikh conspiracy”, UCLA law professor and First Amendment specialist Eugene Volokh reproduced and analyzed a new document up for consideration next Thursday by the Regents of the University of California. If adopted, this will become official policy, and it’s worrisome. (The official document is here, and I’ve put it below (my emphases):

Office of the President

TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION POLICY:

DISCUSSION ITEM

For Meeting of September 17, 2015

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA’S STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AGAINST INTOLERANCE

BACKGROUND

The Regents are strongly committed to a University community that upholds the core principles of respect, inclusion, academic freedom, and the free and open exchange of ideas. Accordingly, as discussed at the July Regents meeting, a statement reflecting these principles has been developed and is outlined below for discussion.

Regents of the University of California’s Statement of Principles Against Intolerance

The University of California is committed to protecting its bedrock values of respect, inclusion, and academic freedom. Free expression and the open exchange of ideas — principles enshrined in our national and state Constitutions — are part of the University’s fiber. So, too, is tolerance, and University of California students, faculty, and staff must respect the dignity of each person within the UC community.

Intolerance has no place at the University of California. We define intolerance as unwelcome conduct motivated by discrimination against, or hatred toward, other individuals or groups. It may take the form of acts of violence or intimidation, threats, harassment, hate speech, derogatory language reflecting stereotypes or prejudice, or inflammatory or derogatory use of culturally recognized symbols of hate, prejudice, or discrimination.

Everyone in the University community has the right to study, teach, conduct research, and work free from acts and expressions of intolerance. The University will respond promptly and effectively to reports of intolerant behavior and treat them as opportunities to reinforce the University’s Principles Against Intolerance.

This statement of principles applies to attacks on individuals or groups and does not apply to the free exchange of ideas in keeping with the principles of academic freedom and free speech.This statement shall not be interpreted to prohibit conduct that is related to the course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or public commentary of an individual faculty member or the educational, political, artistic, or literary expression of students in classrooms and public forums that is protected by academic freedom or free speech principles. The statement is intended to reflect the principles of the Regents of the University of California and shall not be used as the basis to discipline students, faculty, or staff. Discipline is covered under existing policies including the following: Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students, 100.00: Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline, Personnel Policies for Staff Members pertaining to discipline and separation, or University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline (Academic Personnel Manual [APM]-016).

University leaders will take all appropriate steps to implement the principles.

Addendum

The following non-exhaustive list contains examples of behaviors that do not reflect the University’s values of inclusion and tolerance, as described in the Regents of the University of California’s Statement of Principles Against Intolerance.

* Vandalism and graffiti reflecting culturally recognized symbols of hate or prejudice. These include depictions of swastikas, nooses, and other symbols intended to intimidate, threaten, mock and/or harass individuals or groups.

* Questioning a student’s fitness for a leadership role or whether the student should be a member of the campus community on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, sex, or sexual orientation.

* Depicting or articulating a view of ethnic or racial groups as less ambitious, less hardworking or talented, or more threatening than other groups.

* Depicting or articulating a view of people with disabilities (both visible and invisible) as incapable.

There are several problems with this, and I’ll try not to highlight the same ones as Volokh.

  • “Intolerance” is characterized as “unwelcome conduct motivated by discrimination against, or hatred toward, other individuals or groups.” But of course one person’s “unwelcome conduct” is another person’s free speech. For example, criticism of Israel could be taken by Jewish students as “hatred” based on anti-Semitism. Jesus and Mo cartoons can (and have) been seen by Muslims as a blatant form of “hate speech” based on religion. “Hate speech, prejudice, and discrimination” are in the mind of the beholder, which raises the question: Who is to judge? Who at the University of California can set themselves up as arbiters of permitted discourse? Of course prejudice and discrimination are odious, but should statements expressing them be prohibited and punished? Certainly not under the First Amendment, which allows such speech so long as it doesn’t call for imminent violence. Here students are deprived of their First Amendment rights. My own view is that such speech should be allowed, and that the best disinfectant for bigotry and hatred is free discussion, not stifling of any discussion.
  • The distinction drawn between “attacks on individuals and groups” versus “free speech” is invidious and arbitrary, for the former is permitted under the free-speech interpretation of the Constitution. Again, the campuses (UC Berkeley was of course the focus of the “Free Speech Movement”) are denying students their Constitutional rights to criticize anything. (Personal harassment, or persistent attacks that create a hostile work or study environment, are, of course, not only reprehensible but legally prohibited.)
  • This bit is deeply confusing: “The statement is intended to reflect the principles of the Regents of the University of California and shall not be used as the basis to discipline students, faculty, or staff.” Yet the same document says that “The University will respond promptly and effectively to reports of intolerant behavior and treat them as opportunities to reinforce the University’s Principles Against Intolerance.” It also says this: “University leaders will take all appropriate steps to implement the principles.” What are these statements but a threat to punish individuals who violate the principles of the document? At the very least, these sentences will have a chilling effect on the statements of both students and faculty.
  •  Volokh deals with the bit of the document in italics below, noting that “public forum” is a legal term that means “government-owned property that has been opened for speech by the public at large, or by some objectively defined group of speakers on some defined topics”. Such forums apparently do not include venues that should nevertheless be vehicles for free speech, like student newspapers, websites, email conversations, or public conversations.

This statement shall not be interpreted to prohibit conduct that is related to the course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or public commentary of an individual faculty member or the educational, political, artistic, or literary expression of students in classrooms and public forums that is protected by academic freedom or free speech principles.

  • Vandalism and most graffiti are illegal, and can clearly be punished according to the “non exhaustive” list of sanctioned behaviors. The other three items mentioned, which in most cases are offensive, also seem to fall under the rubric of free speech. These include discussions of group differences, fitness for leadership based on ethnicity or race, and discussions about the disabled. Remember that disabled students at Princeton called for philosopher Peter Singer’s firing because they perceived his views on euthanasia of severely disabled infants as “hate speech” directed against them.

Again, I truly abhor most of the behaviors singled out as examples of genuine intolerance. But I think that that sort of intolerance can be—and has been—interpreted excessively broadly by campuses since the growth of “offense” culture. So one problem is the one I mentioned above: “Who decides when the principles have been violated?” The other is my view that universities, as in the U.S. as a whole, can and should emphasize that they want to promote a culture of “tolerance,” but if free speech violates that tolerance, the way to deal with it is not to punish the speakers, but combat them with counter-speech.

Readers’ wildlife photographs

September 13, 2015 • 8:15 am

Reader Jacques Hausser from Switzerland sent a batch of lepidopteran photos, and this is the last installment. The notes are his:

Ochlodes sylvanus, the Large Skipper (Hesperiidae). It is typical of Hesperidae to keep their anterior wings up (more or less) while the rear wings remain horizontal. This individual is a male, recognizable by the black patches of androconia (special scales diffusing pheromones) on the anterior wings. Larvae feed on various grasses.

Lep-16

Lycaena phlaeas, the American Copper or Common Copper (Lycaenidae). It is actually a fully holarctic species. The caterpillar feeds on various Sorrel (Rumex) species.

Lep-17

A caterpillar, for a change: Malacosoma alpicola (Lasiocampidae), the Snout Moth. I didn’t notice the tiny springtail (Collembola, Sminthuridae) when I toke the picture. It looks like somebody having narrowly escaped a big road-train like they have in Australia.

Lep-18

Nemophora degeerella, the Longhorn Moth: a small diurnal moth of the family Adelidae, rather nicely colored and gleaming with bronze metallic reflections. Loose swarms of males dance in the sun around the bushes to intercept females, a dance frequently interrupted by a short rest, sitting on the leaves…

Lep-19

… and I understand the need for rest: flying while carrying these insanely long antennae must be exhausting !

Lep-20

Buffalo Springfield Week: “Nowadays Clancy Can’t Even Sing”

September 13, 2015 • 7:45 am

This wonderful song appeared on the first Buffalo Springfield album (eponymously named) in 1966. It was, of course, written by Neil Young (just listen to the lyrics), but sung by Richie Furay. I emphasize again how young Young was then: only 21. He was already prodigiously talented at an age when most of us were young and easy under the apple boughs.

The lyrics, as usual, are both affecting and opaque. Who is Clancy? Who was the gypsy that hadn’t yet begun? And what does it mean to put sponge in the bells that he rung? (A great metaphor, but still. . . ). My default interpretation of any early Neil Young song is that it has something to do with romance, as suggested by the last four lines of the penultimate stanza, but only Young knows what it really means. He was a very complicated (and tortured) person.

The final harmonica note, played by Young, is plaintive, the first word that comes to mind when I think of the man.

Who’s that stomping
all over my face?
Where’s that silhouette
I’m trying to trace?
Who’s putting sponge
in the bells I once rung
And taking my gypsy
before she’s begun
To singing the meaning
of what’s in my mind
Before I can take home
what’s rightfully mine.
Joinin’ and listenin’
and talkin’ in rhymes
Stoppin’ the feeling
to wait for the times.

Who’s saying baby,
that don’t mean a thing,
‘Cause nowadays Clancy
can’t even sing.

And who’s all hung-up
on that happiness thing?
Who’s trying to tune
all the bells that he rings?
And who’s in the corner
and down on the floor
With pencil and paper
just counting the score?
And who’s trying to act
like he’s just in between?
The line isn’t black,
if you know that it’s green.
Don’t bother looking,
you’re too blind to see
Who’s coming on
like he wanted to be.

Who’s saying baby,
that don’t mean a thing,
‘Cause nowadays
Clancy can’t even sing.

And who’s coming home
on the old nine-to-five?
Who’s got the feeling
that he came alive,
Though havin’ it,
sharin’ it
ain’t quite the same
It ain’t no gold nugget,
you can’t lay a claim
Who’s seeing eyes
through the crack
in the floor
There it is baby,
don’t you worry no more
Who should be sleepin’,
but is writing this song
Wishin’ and a-hopin’
he weren’t so damned wrong.

Who’s saying baby,
that don’t mean a thing,
‘Cause nowadays Clancy
can’t even sing.

I invite readers or Young aficionados to give me their interpretation (no Googling, because I haven’t looked!).

Neil Young’s own solo version, which is superb in its own way, is here, from the album “Sugar Mountain: Live at Canterbury House” (1968). And a word on the album itself by the Springfield’s bass guitarist Bruce Palmer:

“What hurt the album more than anything, though, was Greene and Stone’s production. Despite the Springfield’s strength as a live act, the managers forced each musician to record separately, piecing the parts together. Worse, after the band participated in the mono mix, Greene and Stone quickly converted the album to stereo, resulting in a tinny mix that outrages the group to this day. Young commented that Greene and Stone made them sound like the All-Insect Orchestra.”

Sunday: Hili dialogue (and lagniappe)

September 13, 2015 • 6:30 am

It’s another cool day here, with a predicted high of only 72°F (I seem to recall that 70°F is optimal for human mental performance), though it will get hotter later in the week. On this day in history, Michelangelo began work on his statue of David (1501), Phineas Gage got a 1.1-meter-long crowbar blasted through his skull in a railroad accident (leading to early realization that brain damage affects personality), and Nikita Krushchev became the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the USSR. Also, Ray Charles was born in 1918, the same year as my late dad. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is making a pun:

Hili: I was always fascinated by the Fall.
A: The fall of what?
Hili: Whatever.

P1030331

In Polish:
Hili: Zawsze mnie fascynował upadek.
Ja: Upadek czego?
Hili: Czegokolwiek.
Malgorzata also sent a bonus picture of Hili and Cyrus racing each other in the orchard:
11987211_10207057588225440_7663026793007727053_n
And, as a further bonus we also have a Leon monologue; here he is with his staff Elzbieta:

Leon:  I’m acquiring curves.

11921693_1021064711247463_3907890455098361637_n

When I asked Malgorzata what that meant, she explained that “curves” is a Polish idiom that she had translated from Elsbieta’s Polish. Malgorzata:

When a girl grows into a woman you can say “She is getting curves”. When a woman (or a man) is getting too fat, you can say: “Oh, you are getting curves!” Here, Leon is getting rectangular, so he is getting a shape of the basket. In Polish we have the same word for “shape” and “curves” (but only in this meaning, otherwise we have a separate word for “curves”)

Earliest use of the “f” word recorded in English: 1310

September 12, 2015 • 2:30 pm

I really hate using euphemisms such as the “f word” instead of “fuck,” for I don’t see what is gained by the truncation, and in truth it seems a bit prudish. But my titles must be family friendly, and so the above.

At any rate, Medievalists.net, which I take to be a serious and respectable site about the Middle Ages, reports the discovery of the earliest use of, well, the “f word”. Its report:

An English historian has come across the word ‘fuck’ in a court case dating to the year 1310, making it the earliest known reference to the swear word.

Dr Paul Booth of Keele University spotted the name in ‘Roger Fuckebythenavele’ in the Chester county court plea rolls from December 8, 1310. The man was being named as part of a process to be outlawed.

Dr Booth believes that “this surname is presumably a nickname. I suggest it could either mean an actual attempt at copulation by an inexperienced youth, later reported by a rejected girlfriend, or an equivalent of the word ‘dimwit’ i.e. a man who might think that that was the correct way to go about it.”

Prior to Dr. Booth’s discovery, the previous earliest use of the word was in them poem Flen flyys, written around 1475. It had a line that read “fvccant vvivys of heli”, a Latin/English mix meaning “…they fuck the wives of Ely”. Historians have come across earlier uses of the word in medieval England, but have doubted that it was being used as a sexual reference. For example, the name John le Fucker appears in 1278, but this likely could be just a different spelling for the word ‘fulcher’ which means soldier.

In his book, The F Word, Jesse Sheidlower explains “fuck is a word of Germanic origin. It is related to words in several other Germanic languages, such as Dutch, German, and Swedish, that have sexual meanings as well as meaning such as ‘to strike’ or ‘to move back and forth’.”

Poor Roger! And it’s interesting that they’d use a nickname—if that’s what it was—in a court proceedings.

This antedating by 165 years is almost as momentous for linguistics as the discovery of H. naledi is for paleontology. And of course the real use of “fuck” or “fucke” in language must be substantially earlier than 1310.