Stenger on Pigliucci

March 2, 2014 • 11:00 am

Physicist and heathen Victor Stenger has written a peer-reviewed article for Science, Religion, and Culture, which is now accepted and available free online. It’s called “In defense of New Atheism: A response to Massimo Pigliucci.” It’s a critique of Pigliucci’s article “New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn in the Atheism  Movement” (Midwest Studies in Philosophy 37:141–53).

As one might expect, Stenger defends New Atheism against Pigliucci’s claim that it ignores or elbows out philosophy, and also argues that Pigliucci’s attacks on Sam Harris are misguided. Here’s a short excerpt:

I will grant that Pigliucci is justifiably miffed by the statements made by a
number of scientists that question the value of philosophy. Scientists as a whole are a hard-headed lot and can be skeptical, if not downright dismissive, of thinking that they see as vague and muddled – which, it is fair to say, is true of much of what passes for philosophy. But anti-philosophy statements are not unique to the new atheist movement, and it is disingenuous to link this viewpoint with New Atheism. And of course the best philosophers over the ages have been highly intelligent and clear-thinking. I personally have benefited greatly from my reading of philosophy and interactions with philosophers, such as Larry Laudan and Daniel Dennett, who, I have found, often know more about the nature of science than those scientists that criticize them.

I do not think New Atheism is at war with philosophy.Nor are its principles in conflict with philosophy. Theology is another matter.

Boston!

March 2, 2014 • 6:52 am

It’s nice to have some pure time off for R&R, especially in Boston, one of my favorite cities.  I’ll try to post as often as I can, especially since the readers have informed me that I’m only marginally entitled to a life!

In the meantime, here are some photos from activities yesterday and the day before.

The doors of the “Biolabs,” the entrance to the Biological Laboratories of Harvard, are a marvel (I’ve already shown pictures of the animal-themed brickwork and the rhinoceri in posts about my last visit): they show various animals and plants. Here’s the middle of three doors (with a slight self-portrait), the “insect” door.

P1050400

Many advances in biology were made in this building. Behind these doors, for instance, Wally Gilbert devised a method to sequence DNA, for which he won the Nobel Prize. It was here that Mark Ptashne and others discovered how genes were regulated (turned “on” and “off”). And it was here that E. O. Wilson began devising his ideas about sociobiology (he later moved to the newer Museum of Comparative Zoology Laboroatories, where I worked).

A wasp and self portrait:

P1050402

Lunch on Friday at one of my favorite restaurants in Boston: Durgin-Park, whose antecedents go  back to 1742. It is a bastion of New England (Yankee) cooking: lobster, baked beans, Indian pudding (more below), scrod, and so on. Here’s a substantial lunch: Yankee pot roast, mashed potatoes (real, not from flakes!), and mashed butternut squash.

P1050404

And the obligatory dessert for me: warm Indian pudding with a scoop of homemade vanilla ice cream, which melts into a creamy sauce that perfectly complements this earthy, granular pudding. Indian pudding, found only in New England, is made from cornmeal, molasses, butter, eggs, cinnamon, and other spices, and baked for a long time. Here’s a recipe, and perhaps a reader would like to try it. People whom I take to this restaurant (and offer a bit of the dessert) either love it or say, “meh”: there are far more of the latter than the former. But I regard it as one of the great achievements of American gastronomy.

P1050406

Below is Durgin-Park, ensconced now in the temple of capitalism and kitsch that is the Faneuil Hall Market. When I first moved to Boston in 1972, it was a real market with purveyors of meat, cheese, and produce. Now it’s a big tourist attraction with nothing uniquely Bostonian save this restaurant. The rest comprises the usual stores and food emporia you find in these “renovations.” And of course it’s a prime tourist destination.

P1050408

After lunch, a walk along the Freedom Trail, which hits many of downtown Boston’s historical high spots: the site of the Boston Massacre, Paul Revere’s house, the Old North Church, the ship the U.S. “Constitution” (“Old Ironsides”), and so on.

But it was cold, and a robin registered its displeasure with the weather.

P1050411

I’ m told sidewalk plaques like this one are common, but this was the first I’d seen:

P1050412

You could find a billboard like this only in Boston, and baseball fans will know what it’s about.

P1050409

My friends Naomi Pierce and Andrew Berry, with whom I stayed the first two days, have acquired a huge rabbit named Wallace (after A. R. Wallace, of course).  It lives in a two-story cage, but it’s sometimes let for noms and romps (no fusses, though, because it bites!) Here’s Naomi feeding Wallace. He is huge, a veritable Jungfrau of lagomorphs. Perhaps some reader will recognize the breed; I can’t remember it.

Rabbit 1

Wallace nomming:

Rabbit 2

Andrew, preoccupied with a talk he was giving in Florida on Darwin that evening, demonstrates the proper way to eat Weetabix, the breakfast of choice at Chez Pierce-Berry. According to Andrew, the biscuits must be eaten only in even numbers (I like three, and am roundly excoriated for it), doused only with a tiny bit of milk, and eaten quickly lest they become soggy. Given that I like them partly soggy and in odd numbers, I suffer greatly at breakfast (Andrew does not forgive miscreants lightly).

Weetabix

Lunch was at the Penang. We tried the Gourmet Dumpling House first, which Steve Pinker, who lives in the area, recommends as Boston’s best Chinese restaurants. And it’s the best I’ve tried, but yesterday it was impossibly crowded. We thus headed for a nearby Malaysian restaurant that is one of my standbys, the Penang.  Here is beef rendang, a moderately spicy beef dish with sauce:

Beef rendang

Chicken with ginger and greens:

Chicken ginger

Green beans with shrimp:

String beans

My favorite dessert, called “ABC”, which is the Malaysian equivalent of a sno-cone. It’s a mound of shaved ice doused with rosewater and other syrup, and various things like corn kernels, black beans, grass jelly, and other oddments. It’s very refreshing.

ABC

A classic: mango with glutinous rice (and pineapple):

Mango and rice

A classic Boston historic sight: The Granary Burying Ground, where many notable American patriots (and other famous Bostonians of the colonial era) found their final rest.

Burying ground

It’s a somber place on a gray winter’s day:

Graveyard 2

The resting place of John Hancock, whose large signature on the Declaration of Independence is famous:

John Hancock

Mother Goose! Actually, Mary Goose (and her husband), supposedly author of the Mother Goose stories, a claim that is disputed:

Mother Goose

Samuel Adams, an active patriot during the American Revolution, which started in Boston, and now known largely for the beer named after him:

Sam Adams

Paul Revere, silversmith, patriot, and the man who made the the famous Midnight Ride to Lexington:

Paul revere

And finally, for breakfast this morning, a passel of Verna’s donuts: genuine homemade dunkers produced by a family operation a block from where I’m staying.
 
P1050452

Some people actually believe this stuff

March 1, 2014 • 1:16 pm

by Matthew Cobb

All religions tell stories that seem somewhat bizarre to the more critically-minded unbelievers (talking snake, anyone?). But surely there is little out there to match the wackiness of what Scientologists truly believe, which is described in all its gory detail in this gif (pronounced…) An Illustrated History of Scientology, which was posted on Imgur. It lasts about 5 minutes and is highly recommended if you haven’t previously encountered this truly sophisticated theology. This is apparently called “Advanced Technology” by the Scientologists and is only revealed to believers when they have donated $$$$$$$$ to the Church. Why they hide this stuff from public gaze isn’t clear to me – could it be they think we will laugh?

An Illustrated History of Scientology – Imgur.

PS: I just noted on Wikipedia that “Scientologists warn that reading the Xenu story without proper authorization could cause pneumonia.” Just in case, here is a list of the symptoms.

Purdue University rejects “God” language on donor’s plaque

March 1, 2014 • 10:58 am

In a move reminiscent of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History’s removal of a donor’s plaque celebrating “God’s creatures”, Purdue University, in Lafayette, Indiana, is being sued because it refused to put up a donor’s plaque that referred to God.

As the Indianapolis Star reports:

When Michael McCracken and his wife made a $12,500 donation to Purdue’s School of Mechanical Engineering in 2012, Purdue asked the engineering graduate to provide an inscription for a conference room dedication plaque, which would be installed in the recently renovated Herrick Laboratories.

But the words McCracken chose, in honor of his parents, turned out to be controversial.

“To those who seek to better the world through the understanding of God’s physical laws and innovation of practical solutions. In honor of Dr. William ‘Ed’ and Glenda McCracken.”

Purdue rejected the dedication because of its use of the word “God,” which officials said would be a government endorsement of religion. Purdue is a public institution and receives money from state and federal entities.

McCracken, his lawyer and The Liberty Institute, a national group backing him, said the plaque is private speech and that Purdue’s ban violates his First Amendment rights under the establishment clause.

“The First Amendment protects Dr. McCracken’s right to refer to ‘God’s physical laws,’ ” said McCracken’s attorney, Robert K. Kelner of Covington & Burling LLP.

Well, not so fast. Purdue University, like the museum in Los Angeles, is a state university, i.e., an arm of the government of Indiana. The First Amendment prohibits the mixing of church and state (university in this case), so such signs are not only misleading (“God’s physical laws”—really??), presuming the existence of God, but unconstitutional. Purdue has every right to prohibit them, and I’m pleased that university took that stand. But I’m not proud of them, because of the way they phrased their objection (see below).

Now of course the donor has every right to take his money back unless there is a signed document saying that he’s donating the money without restrictions, but it appears that Purdue also seemed to approve a priori whatever the donor wanted to say. In that case Purdue made a mistake, but is under no legal obligation to provide a sign that violates the constitution. And in such a case it must return the money. But $12,500 is chicken feed to a school like Purdue.

Purdue’s legal counsel made the following statement:

“We have a great deal of understanding and sympathy for the disappointment of the McCracken family. If we had confidence that the courts would find this private speech as the donor’s counsel argues, then we would agree immediately — and strongly.

“But given the facts here, our status as a public institution, and the hopelessly muddled state of jurisprudence in this particular area, we could fully expect lengthy and expensive litigation that would wipe out the value of this donation many times over, and we just don’t think that’s advisable for either the donor or the university. Still, we remain open to continued discussions, as we’d much prefer to be in the mode of expressing gratitude, not disagreement, to our donors.”

As you see, the University is taking no position on the constitutionality of the wording, which I find a bit disappointing. They are simply saying that they can’t take the cost of a lawsuit. Well, that’s disingenuous because there’s no guarantee that anyone would sue (somebody with “standing” would have to complain). What they are doing is covering their own butts without offending the donor’s religious sentiments, and probably in light of the fact that they screwed up.  I think, though, that I know of one or two Purdue faculty that might have complained about such a plaque!

McCracken’s lawyer made the expected defense:

“The university is essentially giving voices that would ban even private references to ‘God’ a heckler’s veto here,” Kelner said. “In so many words, the statement suggests that Dr. McCracken’s pledge was not large enough to justify the hassle of defending his speech in court. But, of course, it is precisely the university’s decision to violate Dr. McCracken’s First Amendment rights that would lead to potentially lengthy and expensive litigation.”

It’s not a private reference if it’s on a state university campus in public view! But Kelner did hit a nerve by zeroing in on Purdue’s unwise implication that they would engage in litigation defending the plaque had McCracken’s donation been larger.

In the end, though, there’s no way this plaque will—or should—go up. It’s clearly a violation of the First Amendment, and I have a feeling that someone with standing would raise an objection. That would allow a first-amendment suit to go forward, probably with the help of the Freedom from Religion Foundation

The newspaper article ends with this ominous statement:

McCracken’s lawyer said his client has given him the go-ahead to enter into litigation should the situation not be cleared up through negotiation.

Such litigation would be a loser if Purdue gives the money back.  And someone who can afford a donation of only $12,500 is unlikely to be able to foot the costs of a free-speech lawsuit—unless the Liberty Institute will handle the case pro bono. 

If you want to see the profound misunderstanding that Americans have over their First Amendment, read some of the comments on the article (click on “comments” on the bottom). One reader even says that if you don’t like this kind of religious statement, just turn your head and don’t look at it. That, of course, could justify all kinds of religious incursions into government.  I don’t suppose that reader would make the same argument if there were an (equally illegal) plaque saying, “This building was donated in the name of humanity, for there is no God.”

h/t: Amy

Idaho set to allow guns on state campuses

March 1, 2014 • 8:49 am

There are three issues that are hot-button topics on this site: topics that, when I give my opinion, I know I’ll encounter a lot of push-back. They are, of course, Israel, free will, and gun control.  And on the last one I’m pretty sure my position will never budge, for I see the ready availability of guns as something we simply don’t need in our society, and a major cause of mayhem.

Yes, I know the Second Amendment is used to justify unlimited gun possession (often including semiautomatic or automatic weapons), but that second amendment reads as follows (this is the version ratified by the states):

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And I know the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that as allowing private gun ownership, but why must I agree with everything they adjudicate? In this case, I agree with Garry Wills that the initial clause was meant to justify gun ownership for a militia, and not to allow everyone to own guns willy-nilly (see Wills’s cogent argument in his New York Review of Books piece, “To keep and bear arms“).

Today the Idaho state legislature is poised to receive a bill that will allow “concealed carry” (handguns or other weapons that are not visible) on state campuses. (The bill was passed by committee and sent to the House yesterday, which almost certainly means it will be approved by the entire legislature.)

ABC News reports on the bill:

Idaho lawmakers were expected to pass a bill Friday that would allow concealed carry permit holders to arm themselves on college and university grounds, despite opposition to the measure from multiple police chiefs and leaders of all eight of the state’s public colleges.

The legislation, which passed the Senate 25-10 earlier this month, allows retired law enforcement officers and those with Idaho’s new enhanced concealed carry permit to bring their firearms onto campus. Concealed weapons would still be barred from dormitories, stadiums and concert halls.

If it passes, Idaho would join six other states with provisions — either from lawmakers or dictated by court decisions — that allow concealed carry on campus: Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Utah is the only state with a specific law that forbids universities from banning concealed carry at any of its 10 public institutions.

I have to say that I see no justification for allowing guns on campus—or anywhere else in public in the hands of private citizens. The British model has always seemed optimal to me: some people can have guns, but that is subject to very strict licensing regulation.  And there is virtually no private possession of handguns.

In response to this ridiculous legislation, Idaho biology professor Greg Hampikian (who happens to also be the founder of the Idaho Innocence Project) wrote a sarcastic and biting editorial in the New York Times, “When may I shoot a student?“. A small excerpt:

Knee-jerk reactions from law enforcement officials and university presidents are best set aside. Ignore, for example, the lame argument that some drunken frat boys will fire their weapons in violation of best practices. This view is based on stereotypical depictions of drunken frat boys, a group whose dignity no one seems willing to defend.

The problem, of course, is not that drunken frat boys will be armed; it is that they are drunken frat boys. Arming them is clearly not the issue. They would cause damage with or without guns. I would point out that urinating against a building or firing a few rounds into a sorority house are both violations of the same honor code.

In terms of the campus murder rate — zero at present — I think that we can all agree that guns don’t kill people, people with guns do. Which is why encouraging guns on campus makes so much sense. Bad guys go where there are no guns, so by adding guns to campus more bad guys will spend their year abroad in London. Britain has incredibly restrictive laws — their cops don’t even have guns! — and gun deaths there are a tiny fraction of what they are in America. It’s a perfect place for bad guys.

Who’s behind this stupid law? Republicans, of course, and they’re legislating in the face of public sentiment. City Desk reports:

Following six hours of testimony from scores of Idaho citizens testifying nearly four-to-one in opposition, the Idaho House State Affairs Committee voted 11 to 3 in the late afternoon of Feb. 28 to approve the so-called “guns on campus” bill, sending it the full Idaho House—the final hurdle before the measure presumably heads to the governor’s office for his ultimate decision.

Friday’s committee vote was strictly along party lines, with the body’s 11 Republicans all voting in favor of Senate Bill 1254 and three Democrats voting no.

How much more evidence do we need to understand that Republicans are keeping this country dysfunctional?

h/t: Tom

Caturday felid trifecta: A $35,000 home improvement for kittehs, plus two gifs

March 1, 2014 • 5:32 am

According to Bored Panda, which must really be bored, an unidentified homeowner in California, who happens to own 18 moggies, has commissioned a $35,000 home-improvement project by the contracter Trillium Enterprises. The upgrade includes an elaborate system of ramps, walkways, and staircases so the cats can be anywhere they want.

The project is, of course, not for the owner’s delectation, but for his cats.  He also “installed a ventilation system, which will ensure that the home stays fresh and the cats stay healthy.”

Voilà—ailurophilia taken to the extreme:

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.54.18 PM

Some misguided souls (I know at least one) are embarrassed to have their cats watch them while they bathe—or do other ablutions.

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.53.56 PM

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.53.00 PM

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.53.33 PM

I guess the guy can afford it:

Screen shot 2014-02-28 at 4.54.34 PM

Now can’t you imagine Baihu, Butter, or Kink enjoying such a setup? Why don’t they have one?

Here’s a gif of a kitten who doesn’t know mirrors:

k1N13cY

Finally, here’s a gif (which I can’t embed) of an epic cat fail. 

h/t: Steve, Carol