Not your ordinary boot

April 7, 2011 • 5:22 am

These boots may not look like much, but to a collector they’re a holy grail.  They were made by the late Ray Jones of Lampasas Texas, perhaps the best bootmaker who ever lived.

Jones made boots for working cowboys, and these things are built like a tank.  They’re heavy and solid, and I can’t imagine them ever wearing out. I was fortunate to get this pair (one of three) from a collector.  They are several decades old.

Jones was a stubborn cuss who only used one stitch pattern for first-time customers.  If you bought several pairs over the years, he might eventually consider using another pattern on the top (“shafts”).  He also used white piping on the side, and his signature “toe bug” (the design stitched on the foot part or “vamp”) instantly identifies a vintage boot as a Jones:

The allure of a Jones boot is not its flashy appearance but its sheer quality.  You’d need a bandsaw to take them apart.  Custom cowboy boots have only a few ingredients: leather, glue, thread, rubber for the heel caps, a steel shank under the arch (purists use a large nail hammered flat), and lemonwood pegs to hold the sole to the insole.  These pegs are carefully hammered into holes cut in the leather, and are better than metal since they swell when they’re wet.  Another Jones trademark was the quantity of pegs he used; you can also identify his boots because he used three rows of pegs on each side of the sole instead of the usual two:

Some more Ray Jones boots photographed by Jennifer June; note that the stitching is identical to mine:

More criticism of Nowak et al.’s attack on kin selection

April 6, 2011 • 10:03 am

For those of you keeping up with the flap on kin selection, there’s a new paper online in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology by F. Rousset and S. Lion.  It’s a critique of the Nature paper by Nowak et al. that attacked both the coherence and importance of inclusive fitness theory (“kin selection”), a theory that has been immensely productive for evolutionary biology in the last five decades.

Rousset and Leon maintain the following:

  • Nowak et al. misrepresent kin selection (inclusive fitness theory) as something different from natural selection
  • Nowak et al.’s critique of Hamilton’s “rule” (“br > c”) is misleading; many of the “criticisms” are either wrong or (as with assumptions of genetic additivity or peculiarities of population structure) became part of kin-selection theory ages ago. Nowak et al.’s assertions that these are fatal flaws in the theory are therefore wrong.
  • Nowak et al.’s own model for the origin of eusociality in insects (the presence of a queen and a sterile worker caste) is far less robust than inclusive-fitness theory, and in fact does not deal with the crucial problem of whether genetic relatedness explains eusociality since their model does not vary relatedness.
  • Nature was severely remiss in publishing such a flawed paper in the first place.

Rousset and Leon are quite critical about Nature‘s handling of the Nowak et al. manuscript.  Here are a few quotes:

We think the publication of this article in a high-profile journal, along with the large media coverage it received, is an illustration of some serious shortcomings in current scientific practice. Arguably, the impact of NTW’s paper reflects to a large extent the rhetorical ability of the authors, rather than the scientific value and novelty of the paper. . .

Stylistically, the paper often departs from the neutrality of scientific prose, using a variety of rhetorical tricks typically found in the discourses of politicians or the writings of polemists, rather than in academic articles. When they ask falsely evident rhetorical questions,1 liken inclusive fitness theory to geocentrism, or claim without justification that their approach is ‘common sense’ (their Appendix, p. 20), NTW are a long way away from what is generally expected of scientific discourse. In particular, it is troubling to see the authors turn to the argument of geocentrism and its unfalsifiable epicycles to discredit inclusive fitness (their Appendix).

The allusion to ‘Darwinian epicycles’ is indeed a typical rhetorical trick used to attack evolutionary biology. . .

. . . We think the wide impact of an article that rests on such fragile foundations calls into question the efficiency of the editorial process in the most famous scientific journals. Nature’s extravagant editorial characterization of the paper as ‘the first mathematical analysis of inclusive fitness theory’ recklessly tramples on nearly 50 years of accumulated knowledge. It is often said that science is self-correcting, but this can be so only if authors are engaged by the validity of what they are writing, if reviewers are engaged in the same way, and if science, rather than only media buzz, impact, and citations, matters to editors.

Agreed. Nature, of course, will never admit that it was remiss in handling the article.

______________

Rousset, F. and S. Lion (2011). Much ado about nothing: Nowak et al.’s charge against inclusive fitness theory. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, online, doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02251.x

Martin Rees nabs Templeton; I respond in The Guardian

April 6, 2011 • 6:22 am

This morning Martin Rees was awarded the million-pound Templeton Prize.  It was a canny choice by Templeton, which hopes to achieve scientific respectability through this most visible of their awards.  Rees is a distinguished cosmologist with a string of honors: he is a Baron (“Lord Rees”), ex-president of the prestigious Royal Society, the official Astronomer Royal, and master of Trinity College Cambridge.   And while he professes to be a nonbeliever (perhaps a first for Templeton), he does go to church, says nice things about religion, and, like last year’s winner Francisco Ayala, espouses a Gouldian NOMA, supporting “peaceful co-existence between religion and science because they concern different domains.” He’s also criticized Stephen Hawking for claiming that we don’t need God to explain the origin of the Universe.

And, as in last year’s name-the-Templeton contest, the readers failed to guess the winner.  Rees is not well known to Americans, but we also have many readers from the UK and other lands.

The Guardian asked me to write a piece on Templeton and to add few words about Rees (I knew yesterday he had won, but could not divulge it).  My piece was originally called “The Templeton travesty,” but the Guardian, perhaps wanting controversy, renamed it “Prize mug Marin Rees and the Templeton travesty.”  That’s way too pejorative for me, since my aim was not to denigrate Rees, whose scientific work I admire, but to criticize Templeton.  I’ve objected to the title. (UPDATE: They listened to me and renamed the piece “Martin Rees and the Templeton travesty“.  That’s far better!)

It’s no surprise that I’m still quite critical of Templeton.  Although there are repeated claims that “Templeton is changing,” I think that any changes are purely cosmetic, like replacing the word “religion” with the weasel-word “spirituality.”  They’re still funding woo and diluting science with liberal infusions of faith.

The Guardian also has an official announcement of the award, which, referring to the Prize and not Rees, they call “controversial.” Surprisingly (well, maybe not for The Guardian), it quotes several critics, including Richard Dawkins, Harry Kroto, and me.  Rees appears to be somewhat of an accommodationist, which of course isn’t a surprise, and engages in a bit of atheist bashing:

Here’s some code words for “I like religion”; the word “deep,” beloved by Templeton, is a tipoff:

“Doing science made me realise that even the simplest things are hard to understand and that makes me suspicious of people who believe they’ve got anything more than an incomplete and metaphorical understanding of any deep aspect of reality,” he told the Guardian. “I participate in occasional religious services which are the customs of the society I grew up in. I’m not allergic to religion.” . .

. . .Speaking ahead of the announcement, Rees criticised the confrontational stance that Dawkins and other “professional atheists” take in debates over science and religion. “I think all of us are concerned about fanaticism and fundamentalism and we need all the allies we can muster against it,” he said.

Richard, of course, is not a “professional atheist”; he’s a biologist who talks and writes about atheism.  He has one atheist book and nine biology books.  And the implicit accusation that atheists are rife with “fanaticism and fundamentalism” is simply slander.   Rees adds the common accommodationist plaint:

“If you are teaching Muslim sixth formers in a school and you tell them they can’t have their God and Darwin, there is a risk they will choose their God and be lost to science,” Rees said. In a previous spat over Rees’s open attitude to religious matters, Dawkins labelled the Cambridge cosmologist a “compliant quisling”.

What’s more, Rees goes after Stephen Hawking for “theological ignorance”.  LOL!

Rees launched another attack on his Cambridge colleague Stephen Hawking, who in the week his latest book hit the shelves last year declared there was no need for a creator God. “I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read little philosophy and less theology, so I don’t think his views should be taken with any special weight,” Rees said. “I’m not prepared to pronounce on these things. I think it’s rather foolish when scientists do.”

But of course Hawking’s statement comes not from theology or philosophy but from physics: he feels that the theories of physics are capable of accounting for the origin (or eternal persistence) of a universe without invoking the supernatural.

Let us not forget that although Rees is an eminent and accomplished scientist, he’s not winning the Prize for his science alone. As Templeton explains, it’s awarded for this:

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. Established in 1972 by the late Sir John Templeton, the Prize aims, in his words, to identify “entrepreneurs of the spirit”—outstanding individuals who have devoted their talents to expanding our vision of human purpose and ultimate reality. The Prize celebrates no particular faith tradition or notion of God, but rather the quest for progress in humanity’s efforts to comprehend the many and diverse manifestations of the Divine.

The Guardian‘s Ian Sample also has an interview with Rees, which is most striking for Rees’s reluctance to answer questions.

IS: What do you think the Templeton prize achieves? What is the value of it?

MR: That’s not for me to say to be honest.

IS: You must have a view?

MR: No.

IS: But you think it achieves something?

MR: Well, I mean as much as other prizes, certainly, but I wouldn’t want to be more specific than that.

And although Rees says that “I’ve got no religious beliefs at all,” he won’t be pinned down on that.  That’s precisely how Francisco Ayala handled the issue last year.

IS: Why don’t you believe in God?

MR: Um. Which God?

IS: A God.

MR: I don’t think I can answer that.

IS: Really?

MR: Mm.

IS: You must have thought about it.

MR: Yes. But there’s nothing very much I want to say about that. I suppose one thing I would say, from my BBC lectures, I think doing science makes me realise that even the simplest things are pretty hard to understand and that makes me suspicious of people who believe they’ve got anything more than an incomplete and metaphorical understanding of any deep aspect of reality. . . .

S: The suggestion is that science deals with the “material world” and religion deals with something “extra-material”. Where does one end and the other start? There are aspects of religion that comment on the creation of Earth, the creation of the universe, the creation of humanity and the spread of HIV around Africa. Religion appears in those contexts, but are those not material issues?

MR: Yes. Obviously. But I think just as religion is separate from science, so is ethics separate from science. So is aesthetics separate from science. And so are many other things. There are lots of important things that are separate from science.

IS: If there is a clear and obvious boundary between science and religion, how does religion come to be used in these contexts?

MR: I try to avoid getting into these science and religion debates.

This is political astuteness, which of course helps explain why Rees rose so high in the British scientific establishment.  Perhaps the most accomplished scientist among Templeton winners, Rees was a smart choice for the Foundation.  But I’m still not convinced that Templeton is doing anything more than trying to buy credibility.  When it gives the prize to someone like Dawkins, who doesn’t go to church and is not prepared to say nice things about religion, then I’ll reconsider.   I think one could make a good case that if you consider cosmological work as “affirming life’s spiritual dimension,” then Richard’s work on evolution (viz., Unweaving the Rainbow, Climbing Mount Improbable) does exactly the same thing, addressing “deep questions” and increasing our wonder at the universe.

Finally, The Guardian also published a transcript of Rees’s acceptance speech.  It’s okay but not terribly exciting. He finishes this way:

Finally, it remains for me only to express my deepest appreciation to the Templeton Foundation for this award. It was, needless to say, entirely unexpected. I am diffident about my credentials, but it is a great privilege to join the distinguished and diverse roll-call of previous awardees.

Those, of course, include Mother Teresa, the Reverend Billy Graham, Watergate defendant Chuck Colson (imprisoned for obstructing justice), and many theologians.

A giraffe is born

April 5, 2011 • 8:48 am

Website posting will be light today as I must write a newspaper piece, commissioned just this morning, that is due tomorrow 11 a.m. London time—and you know what’s going to happen then!

A giraffe was born only three days ago at the Cincinnati Zoo, and here’s some fantastic footage of the birth. It’s amazing that the newborn can survive that long drop, landing right on its head! A merciful god, of course, would have made the giraffes land feet first.

h/t: Matthew Cobb

Sam Harris speaks here Friday

April 5, 2011 • 5:29 am

By the grace of Ceiling Cat, Sam Harris will be speaking here this Friday afternoon about his new book, The Moral Landscape.  Admission is free, and the location and time appear in this ad from the student newspaper (click to enlarge):

Sam’s 20-minute talk will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the audience.

Thanks to the U of C Office of Spiritual Life, Professor Robert Richards, and Dr. Alex Lickerman for helping organize this affair.

RIP Huxley

April 5, 2011 • 4:31 am

I have unhappy news to report this morning.  If you’re a regular reader, you’ll remember the recent Kitteh Contest entries Millie and Huxley, owned by reader Gayle Ferguson.  They were beautiful tabbies, and I’m saddened to report that Huxley was killed yesterday in his garden by a dog.  According to Gayle, “Millie witnessed the attack.  She was distressed and growling, and I think she is missing her playmate.”  Gayle, who is of course devastated, has written a brief eulogy for Huxley, and I’m sure you’ll join me in expressing condolences.

“RIP Huxley, sweet and gentle little soul, very much missed by his sister kitteh Millie and his mummy Gayle.  I’ll miss his sloppy cat kisses, his love of cuddles, and his almost inaudible purring; his 5.30am breakfast demands, not so much.  In his last days he’d taken to sleeping in the fruit bowl on the kitchen bench – a tight squeeze for the fuller cat!  I’ll always remember my Heffalump sunning himself in the garden in the most unusual spots, in one of which I will plant a memorial shrub”.

Huxley

Kitteh contest: Lola

April 5, 2011 • 4:02 am

Reader Callan Bentley entered lovely Lola.  The original photo was the “cat with backpack” shown below, but he’s since submitted a few others.

Lola is a small, gray cat that I adopted from the SPCA. She is a charmer not only because she loves to hang out with people, but also for her endearing habit of crawling into small spaces and then hanging out there, looking contented. Whether it’s a bag, a box, an open drawer, or a trash can, she loves to get inside and look out.

My favorite example of this habit came when I was getting ready for a backpacking trip to Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, and Lola wanted in on the action. With the backpack propped against the wall (and the belt loop buckled), Lola went over and inserted herself into the empty space. The result of this particular exploration made it look like she planned on shouldering my pack down the trail. She’s an indoor-only cat, so she wasn’t allowed to actually join me on the trail, but I love the confident, assured look she projects – like backpacking is second nature to her.

Lola again channeling Maru: