Wacko comments of the week

February 15, 2014 • 9:35 am

Some of the nastiest emails and comments I get are from defenders of woomeisters like Rupert Sheldrake (who complained to my provost about me a few weeks ago) and Deepak Chopra. There’s a penchant for woo that runs deep in some people.

From reader “Someone who knows,” commenting on a post about Tanzi and Deepak Chopra’s theory of “self-directed evolution”.  I love the aside that I’ve never been in a lab.  Note that in none of these comments so far—and this one includes a gratuitous insult—do the readers have the guts to identify themselves with their real names. If the person was forced to use  his real name (I’m assuming it’s a male), do you suppose he would have added the last word? I again would urge readers to use their real names while commenting, though I understand why many will not and will respect their reasons to remain pseudonymous.

“What mystifies me is that this article is co-written with Rudolph Tanzi, a neuroscientist at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital, described in the article as “Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit and Vice-Chair of the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital. He is also the Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School. Co author with Deepak Chopra, Super Brain.” Why would a respectable scientist lend his name to..”

Perhaps because this is cutting edge science and is in fact….. real.

Are you a qualified doctor or neuroscientist? What qualifies you to talk about scientific data and theories with no qualifications or knowledge? Do I see you in a lab? No.

Did you think science would just ‘stop’ finding out new things. Undermining someone else and their research doesn’t automatically intelligent, it makes you automatically ignorant. Ignorance by the way, means you are with the absolute stupidest people on the whole planet, congratulations on your ignorance!! Bravo! Cunt.

Note that the theory I was posting about, “self-directed evolution,” is about genetics and evolution—precisely my area of expertise. Being an M.D. doesn’t provide any more credibility to discuss that. Note as well that this commenter plays the “credentials card” to defend Tanzi and Chopra’s theory, even though I raised real scientific arguments against it (arguments that “One Who Knows” doesn’t seem to understand, or care about).

***

Reader Mark, an obvious sympathizer with Intelligent Design, comments on a post critical of Stephen Meyer’s interpretation of the Cambrian “explosion” as the handiwork of Jesus, “A paleontologist’s response to Darwin’s Dilemma“:

You assume there was 40 million years to play with. There is no known study that I have ever seen that dates the exact time it had taken. It could have been as short as 200 thousand or even overnight nobody knows yet. They are setting up more accurate ways of measurement to see just how long it did take, so I will wait and see before I stick my head out only to get it stepped on when that data comes out. Something in the plus or minus range of 5% will do.

Second, it doesn’t answer why we have the Yunnan Cambrian find producing embryonic cell and embryos once thought impossible to find in the fossil records. It clearly can be seen and observed under an electron microscope. So the theory that no soft body animals could be found is false.

I might add the study saying evolution was 5 times greater then the Big Bang would require “Special Evolution” to happen only once then stop. That is not Darwinian or even Neo Darwinian theory as it breaks all the rules of simple naturalistic, random mutations, unguided process mechanism. It’s not even reducible to smaller simple cell proteins or amino acids that could account for this special evolution to even happen without special modeling and certain human fudging on restrictions they’ve applied to get the result they wanted. I might add they did it so quick I was even amazed it had only taken 4 or 5 years with no hypotheses was ever established much less a theory where others could follow along on the progress. It just appeared as if it was planed in secret.

One thing we can definitely say about the Cambrian “Explosion” is that it didn’t take place overnight. Estimates range from 10-40 million years, one can absolutely rule out 200,000 years. And while the length of the explosion is subject to debate (it’s somewhat subjective, of course), the dating of the Cambrian is not subject to debate.

As for the “theory” that no “soft body animals” could be found, that’s just bunk, of course. Nobody ever argued that; what we claim is that the process of fossilization is such that it makes the preservation of animals with only soft parts much rarer, as they are eaten or eroded away before they can be mineralized. But of course we find them. It’s curious that this comment somehow sees this as a refutation of evolutionary theory.

As for the last paragraph, it’s incoherent. This, of course, is common among fulminating creationists.

***

This last, and worst, comment is from “Enochered” in Ireland, who has a website also touting Hitler. He/she was commenting on a post about how “Lots of Irish people admire Hitler.” And the reader simply buttresses my claim.  The Irish, of course, were

Well that was an exhausting business, reading through all of those totally false claims about Adolf Hitler. I have not come across such a frighteningly absurd bunch of ideas about the Third Reich, since I was caught up in a difference with an MSNBC group of bigots. Apart from one or two exceptions, there is not one word of truth or reality in this example of brain-dead received notions about WW2. De Valera himself sent a letter to the Germans expressing his sadness, on hearing of the death of Hitler. I have only one thing to say here. Of all the countries which took part in WW2 Hitler and the German people, were by far the most honourable of them all.

It is true that Irish Prime Minister Eamon De Valera did sign a book of condolences at the German Embassy in Dublin after Hitler’s death, and expressed condolences in other places, though I’m not sure if he sent a letter to the Germans.  De Valera said he did this simply as a matter of diplomatic courtesy, though he didn’t extend this same courtesy to the British when Churchill died in 1965.

One can argue about whether De Valera’s neutrality was an expression of support for the Nazis, or simply just a refusal to take sides, but the same can’t be said for the many Irish who hoped that Hitler would defeat the allies in World War II, a hope fueled by hatred of the British. And, surprisingly, some of that admiration for Hitler remains seventy years after the war ended, a fact documented in my earlier post. This commenter, by saying that Hitler and the German people were more admirable than any country who participated in the war, shows himself or herself to be a contemptible human being.

Saturday: Hili dialogue

February 15, 2014 • 6:44 am
It’s FITNESS!
A: Hili, look—our neighbour has sent us a photo.
Hili: The one on the right is probably Tyrannosaurus rex, but what is the other monster?
1621801_10202754941981973_367070321_nIn Polish:
Ja: Hili, popatrz, sąsiadka przysłała nam zdjęcie.
Hil: Ten po prawej to chyba Tyrannosaurus rex, a ten drugi potwór to kto?
(Photo by: Małgorzata Dwórznik)

Caturday felid trifecta: Camouflage in cats, a feline apology, and an epic cat fail

February 15, 2014 • 6:29 am

Here’s a remarkable case of a felid mimicking a hot beverage. I’m not sure of the adaptive significance of this, as no known nonhuman predators are known to drink cappuccinos.

cat camouflage

One tuxedo cat has transgressed, and appears to be apologizing to another. So sweet! Be sure to watch to the end:

Finally, what is labelled on YouTube as “Skimbles: Epic cat fail.” And indeed it is. The cat has seemingly no awareness of his capabilities:

h/t: Lauren, Roo

Valentine #5

February 14, 2014 • 3:18 pm

Finally, we have one from today’s Guardian compilation of science-themed valentines (there are more, but some of them aren’t compelling):

Guardian

Of course, even this one goes wrong, for you’d be forever separated from your beloved.

Have a nice weekend, hopefully with your inamorata or inamorato. And here’s Dino to put you in the mood (from the 1955 movie “Artists and Models”):

Photograph: stock.xchng

Why religion can be rational, but is doing it wrong

February 14, 2014 • 12:09 pm

For part of the book I’m writing, I’m investigating the claim—one made by theologians and religious apologists—that science in fact was an outgrowth of Christianity, explaining the rise of science in Europe and nowhere else. (Yes, yes, I know about China and the Middle East, but their science fizzled out.) One of the most vociferous exponents of this claim is Rodney Stark, a sociologist of religion who describes himself as “an independent Christian.” His book, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom Capitalism, and Western Success, is often cited as the airtight proof of how science came from Christianity.

Of course there are lots of arguments against this, foremost among them that Christianity held sway for over a millennium in Europe during the Dark Ages, and there was simply no science on tap during that period.  Although one can point to some promotion by the Catholic Church of learning (monks copying ancient manuscripts, the church supporting universities, and so on), at the same time there was a pervasive promotion of dogma and denigration of reason, and an active suppression and persecution of heresy.  While we don’t know why modern science was a specifically European product, a more viable hypothesis is that Europe is where the Enlightenment arose—a movement that encouraged reason, observation, and questioning. (It’s another question why the Enlightenment occurred in Europe, but Steve Pinker has explanations in Better Angels, including the rise of the printing press.)

Stark’s arguments are maddening, but I’ve just read a devastating review of his book (and his thesis) by Andrew Bernstein, “The tragedy of theology: How religion caused and extended the Dark Ages“. The reference is below, the text is free, and it’s a good read.  Some might object that Bernstein is a proponent of Ayn Rand’s objectivism, and he is, but don’t let that put you off, for he does a deft dissection of Stark’s arguments and levels a devastating attack on theology.

I want to leave aside the science-came-from-religion issue for the nonce, and just reproduce something Bernstein said about religion’s use of reason.  His point is that religion does employ reason, but in a completely different way than science uses it. I won’t comment further except that I agree with Bernstein completely. The following segment will be good for you (bolding is mine). His passion and arguments here remind me of Robert G. Ingersoll:

Theologians, and religionists in general, start with a fantasy premise and then proceed to apply rigorous formal logic to tease out its implications. Stark himself points out that “theology consists of formal reasoning about God.” This is admirably exact. Theologians, beginning with a wished-for creation of their own minds, analyze that creation’s characteristics by rigorous application of the principles of formal—that is, deductive—logic.

. . .In the history of philosophy, the term “rationalism” has two distinct meanings. In one sense, it signifies an unbreached commitment to reasoned thought in contrast to any irrationalist rejection of the mind. In this sense, Aristotle and Ayn Rand are preeminent rationalists, opposed to any form of unreason, including faith. In a narrower sense, however, rationalism contrasts with empiricism as regards the false dichotomy between commitment to so-called “pure” reason (i.e., reason detached from perceptual reality) and an exclusive reliance on sense experience (i.e., observation without inference therefrom). Rationalism, in this sense, is a commitment to reason construed as logical deduction from non-observational starting points, and a distrust of sense experience (e.g., the method of Descartes). Empiricism, according to this mistaken dichotomy, is a belief that sense experience provides factual knowledge, but any inference beyond observation is a mere manipulation of words or verbal symbols (e.g., the approach of Hume). Both Aristotle and Ayn Rand reject such a false dichotomy between reason and sense experience; neither are rationalists in this narrow sense.

Theology is the purest expression of rationalism in the sense of proceeding by logical deduction from premises ungrounded in observable fact—deduction without reference to reality. The so-called “thinking” involved here is purely formal, observationally baseless, devoid of facts, cut off from reality. Thomas Aquinas, for example, was history’s foremost expert regarding the field of “angelology.” No one could match his “knowledge” of angels, and he devoted far more of his massive Summa Theologica to them than to physics.

Here is the tragedy of theology in its distilled essence: The employment of high-powered human intellect, of genius, of profoundly rigorous logical deduction—studying nothing. In the Middle Ages, the great minds capable of transforming the world did not study the world; and so, for most of a millennium, as human beings screamed in agony—decaying from starvation, eaten by leprosy and plague, dying in droves in their twenties—the men of the mind, who could have provided their earthly salvation, abandoned them for otherworldly fantasies. Again, these fundamental philosophical points bear heavily against Stark’s argument, yet he simply ignores them.

Religion as a field, at its best, is rationalism—deduction from fantasy premises—not genuine rationality. (At its worst, it repudiates even this attenuated connection to logic in favor of adherence to unadulterated faith.). . .

__________

Bernstein, A. A. 2006. The tragedy of theology:How religion caused and extended the Dark Ages. The Objective Standard 1:11-37.

We’re #1

February 14, 2014 • 10:57 am

This will be the last self-aggrandizing post of the week, but reader Diana “Your Toilet Paper is Backwards” MacPherson alerted me to something on Seth Andrews’ s(“The Thinking Atheist”) Facebook page.

Picture 1 Picture 2

You can listen or download that podcast (but only if you haven’t read WEIT) here, and the whole panoply of Seth’s podcasts can be found here. I’ve sampled a few, and they’re good.

By the way, we all get free drinks. I’m having a Woodford Reserve.