Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
The drama with Cyrus the D*g continues in Dobrzyn, with his staff sleeping in different rooms, one with a canid and the other with a felid.
Hili: Look what a nice dog is in this picture – he is not jumping around at all.
A: Hili, he needs more time…
Hili: Patrz jaki miły pies na tym zdjęciu, wcale nie podskakuje.
Ja: Hili, on potrzebuje trochę czasu.
This guy has the best job in the world; let’s hope it lasts for a long time! It’s Kevin Richardson, whom we’ve met before as “The Lion Whisperer.”
From FACTS.FM:
A brave man named Kevin Richardson is a South African zoologist, who studies native animals to Africa. He has studied lions to such an extent that he seems to have uncovered the secret to not being mauled to death, as you will see. He has decades of hands-on experience studying how lions behave, and he was able to use that knowledge to his benefit in an amazing way.
Richardson and his crew got together their GoPro cameras and traveled to get as close as they possibly could to these African lions. After he calls them, they miraculously DON’T attack, but they go in for a hug! You have to admit that when you watch, you immediately think he’s doomed. Instead, you’re a witness to one of the most adorable hugging sessions ever. These 400-pound animals seem to act like nothing more than house cats around Richardson.
People will comment that the man is mad; that animals like this can’t be trusted, and so on. And maybe they’re right, at least about the latter. But Richardson has had immense experience with these animals, and, oh, what a thrill it must be to have a lion run at you and then hug you!
A couple of pictures. Indented text from the site above:
Richardson is capturing the eyes of the world through his relationships with these lions, as well as hopefully attracting much-needed awareness to the issues that wildlife animals are facing in Africa. Wild animals numbers are dwindling as time goes on, and if these trends continue, animals such as these beautiful lions will eventually be on the endangered species list.
Richardson truly believes that this is a possibility within the next 20 years – not that these lions will be put on endangered species lists, but that they will be extinct.
h/t: Richard Dawkins Tw**er
Over at HuffPo, Deepak Chopra is still kvetching about his Wikipedia page. The fact that PuffHo still lets the old quack continue complaining about his “misrepresentation” at great length shows that no matter how low you think PuffHo has fallen, there’s still a ways to the bottom.
In a piece published yesterday, “Wikipedia, a new perspective on an old problem“, Deepakity essentially argues what another website, Skeptical Science, characterizes as “Deepak Chopra complains about his Wikipedia page being factual” (note the final quote in the S.S. piece from Professor Ceiling Cat).
Chopra is a man who hasn’t grown up and come to terms with the internet, for, though he’s famous and rich, he demands that everything written about him conform to his wishes; and when it isn’t, he effectively throws tantrums. The fact that he repeatedly tries to respond to small-time critics like me shows that he is, psychologically, like Maru the cat, who plaintively admits, “When I see a box, I cannot help but enter.” When Chopra sees criticism, he can’t help but engage. And his own Wikipedia article (particularly the section called “Ideas and reception“), simply shows the craziness of many of his claims, and how people have responded. A sample; I’ve left in the original references so you can see that sources are cited.
Quantum healing
Chopra has been called America’s most prominent spokesman for Ayurveda.[28] He has described his approach to healing using the metaphor “quantum healing”. This refers both to a discrete jump from one level of functioning to another – a quantum leap – and to the idea of thought as an irreducible building block.[30] Chopra has equated spontaneous remission in cancer to a jump to “a new level of consciousness that prohibits the existence of cancer”.[6][31]
Of the aging process, Chopra has written that it is, to some extent, learned behavior and reversible – accelerated by the accumulation of toxins in the body (including toxic emotions), and slowed down by physical exercise, good nutrition, meditation and love.[32]
Chopra has described the AIDS virus as emitting “a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction”. The condition can be treated, according to Chopra, with “Ayurveda’s primordial sound”.[5] Taking issue with this view, medical professor Lawrence Schneiderman has said that ethical issues are raised when alternative medicine is not based on empirical evidence and that, “to put it mildly, Dr. Chopra proposes a treatment and prevention program for AIDS that has no supporting empirical data”.[5]
Ptolemy Tompkins wrote in Time magazine in 2008 that “Chopra has steadily enlarged his reputation from that of healer to philosopher-at-large”, and for most of his career has been a “magnet for criticism”. According to Tompkins, the medical and scientific communities’ opinion of Chopra ranges from dismissive to “outright damning”, particularly because Chopra’s claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine could lure sick people away from effective treatments. Tompkins concluded that “Chopra is as rich as he is today not because he has been dishonest with anyone, but because his basic message… is one that he wants to believe in just as sincerely as his readers do.” [33] According to Robert Carroll, Chopra “charges $25,000 per lecture performance, where he spouts a few platitudes and gives spiritual advice while warning against the ill effects of materialism”.[20]
Note that the article accurately represents what Chopra thinks, and then reiterates the criticisms of it. Wikipedia’s policy is not to present quackery unopposed, and it’s absolutely admirable that they allow these caveats.
But Chopra hates it, and wants his Wikpedia page to present his woo without opposition. Here are some excerpts from his new PuffHo piece:
Many of you may already know how vocal I have been in the past year regarding Wikipedia’s bias covering such topic matters as mind body studies, new science, and of course my friend Rupert Sheldrake’s biography page. Since Rupert and I began to speak out about the level of abuse and outright vitriol occurring on these articles, many more individuals and organizations have also stepped forward, highlighting a similar problem, including Nobel prize winning laureate Brian Josephson. Key facts or relevant events in our lives or research are being omitted, efforts to include them in the articles by neutral editors are being met with harassment, defamation and personal attacks. Skeptic activists on Wikipedia are on a campaign to discredit notable biographies that deal with any form of alternative viewpoints and because I am a highly public proponent, my own article has been made into a ‘ground zero’ for these same skeptics who have sought to discredit my name and work for over 15 years.
First of all, Chopra shouldn’t be associating himself with Rupert Sheldrake if he wants any credibility. Further, look at the excerpt on “quantum healing” above and tell me if you think there’s any “abuse and outright vitreol” in it. He also implies that Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia, a group designed to prevent unsubstantiated science from looking respectable, is tampering with his article; and they simply haven’t.
And then Chopra’s Big Kvetch: he has to actually deal with this skepticism, which takes valuable time away from his mission of pushing woo and selling his products and courses:
I have to deal with this bias and misinformation every time a journalist interviews me and references my Wikipedia article. I need to spend the first 30 minutes of interviews to correct all the misleading information from my Wikipedia article. It doesn’t matter how many reliable sources are submitted, nor how well supported certain facts about my life are — if it doesn’t not fit within the narrative of extreme skepticism of the band of editors controlling my Wikipedia page it is quickly removed. And the editors who complain of this censorship are harassed or banned.
But Deepak wants to control the narrative about him, and so he’s got a new group to bring “neutrality” (i.e., adulation of Chopra) onto his page:
Recently I have obtained a new perspective. A group of researchers and archivists approached me awhile back to explain how Wikipedia works and offered to mediate. They informed me that the problems that are occurring are not because of Wikipedia’s rules and policies, but despite them. Wikipedia’s purpose is to overcome these prejudices and misrepresentations, though the path there is tedious and long. They informed me that the best way to handle this issue was not by exposing the bias of Wikipedia editors (which they are already aware of) — but to be patient and continuing to contribute information faithfully and genuinely, seeking to represent knowledge and nothing more. And that in time the article will become a fairer and more accurate representation.
This team of researchers and historians has now formed the ‘Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository.’ The Chopra Foundation along with a few others are going to be helping them build and expand this database. Their concept is simple. Let’s protect and preserve this knowledge objectively through citations and sources. Let’s make this archive a donation to Wikipedia. Let’s make sure this knowledge is represented without bias to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia’s guidelines for all researchers and journalists. Let’s solve this problem by contributing, not quarreling.
They are now representing my work and biography on Wikipedia and it has been interesting to see the reception that the representative from the archive is getting on my article talk page.
Chopra then winds up with a faux plea for reasonableness:
Most of the skeptic editors on my article believe me to be a very dangerous man — and believe that it is Wikipedia’s responsibility to warn the world of how dangerous my ideas are. They are giving my representative a hard time and are harassing other Wikipedia editors who jump in and try to help. Although this is sad to see, I have hope that in time this can be resolved with integrity through this approach. I believe that by working together and encouraging cooperative behaviors on Wikipedia — that all of this bitterness online can grow a little more productive. Wikipedia, let’s work it out together. See you on the page!
Is anybody fooled by this? Chopra doesn’t want cooperation, and he doesn’t want objective evaluation of his “scientific” claims. He wants to be in charge of his public image.
Now I’m not sure if Chopra is a “very dangerous man”, but he is dangerous in some ways, insofar as his lucubrations and products prevent people from getting sound medical attention. And to me he’s dangerous to the integrity of the scientific enterprise, for he not only makes unsubstantiated claims, like saying we can change our genes by changing our behaviors, but also confuses people by making spouting obfuscating babble that sounds like science but isn’t.
So, Dr. Chopra (and I know you’re reading this), you’re not going to succeed in controlling your public image. Read about the Streisand Effect: the more you beef about the critics, the more critics you’ll get. For there are smart people out there who aren’t going to be taken in by your “quantum consciousness” psychobabble. And there are scientists like me who know that your claim about epigenetically modifying our genes via changing our thoughts and behaviors is bunk—pure, unadulterated hokum. There are scientist/physicians like Orac who will continue to examine your claims from a medical perspective. And we’ll all continue to hold your feet to the fire so long as you pretend that your unsubstantiated woo is real science.
You aren’t going to win this one, Chopra. You will continue to gull many Americans and enrich yourself, but, if you continue on your present course—and you surely will—you will never gain respectability in the scientific community. It’s your choice: your money or good science.
UPDATE: The Freedom From Religion Foundation has emailed a “call for action” on this issue, part of which I reproduce below. It gives a link to a petition and contact information for the Sudanese embassy:
TAKE ACTION
Spread the word via social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter!
You can copy and paste the following message (or write your own) to the contacts listed below:
Please do everything in your power to halt the execution of Meriam Yehya Ibrahim and grant her clemency. She should not be hanged to death for the victimless crime of apostasy. Please immediately intervene to save this mother and prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.
The post of U.S. ambassador to Sudan is currently vacant. The embassy is headed by Chargé d’Affaires Joseph Stafford. The American, Canadian, British and Dutch embassies in Khartoum have issued a statement of “deep concern” over the sentence.
You can contact the Sudanese embassy online here. [JAC: the direct email link is here, send a message if you are so inclined]
MEDIA
Pregnant Christian Woman in Sudan Sentenced to Death for Apostasy
_____________
Meriam Yehya isn’t dead yet, but, according to the BBC, she’s received a sentence of lashing and then hanging from a Sudanese court. Her crime: apostasy. You know by now what that means. She’s supposedly a Muslim who has left the faith, and for that sharia law prescribes death. (The penalty is also approved by a substantial fraction of the world’s Muslims). But, at least according to the article, her crime was not as simple as abandoning Islam. She isn’t really a Muslim. And she married a Christian man, which is illegal in Sudan.
Amnesty International said the woman, Meriam Yehya Ibrahim Ishag, was raised as an Orthodox Christian, her mother’s religion, because her father, a Muslim, was reportedly absent during her childhood. In court, the judge addressed her by her Muslim name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed Abdullah.
But that didn’t even matter:
She was convicted of adultery on the grounds that her marriage to a Christian man from South Sudan was void under Sudan’s version of Islamic law, which says Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslims.
(She was given three days to “recant” but refused.) Nor did it matter that she was married, for marrying a Christian is “adultery.” Here’s the unhappy couple: 
Oh, and did I mention that she is eight months pregnant? On this end the Muslim judge showed infinite mercy:
The judge also sentenced the woman to 100 lashes after convicting her of adultery – because her marriage to a Christian man was not valid under Islamic law. This will reportedly be carried out when she has recovered from giving birth.
Praise Allah that they won’t lash a pregnant woman! That’s truly a religion of peace.
And there’s even more mercy:
Local media report the [hanging] sentence on the woman, who is pregnant, would not be carried out for two years after she had given birth.
The Independent in Ireland adds that she is a physician, and that her 20-month old son is in jail with her. The article has the absolutely accurate headline: 
Amnesty International has objected, while there were a few supporters of the sentence (and some supporters of Dr. Yehya) outside the courtroom. The Independent notes other countries’ objections:
In a joint statement, the embassies of the US, UK, the Netherlands and Canada expressed “deep concern”.
“We call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, including one’s right to change one’s faith or beliefs,” it said.
Okay, so where are the objections from other Western countries, and, especially, from Islamic-majority countries? Don’t expect them. Where are the “moderate” Muslims crying out en masse against this kind of barbarism? Don’t expect it. The Islamic moderates, by and large, simply keep silent when something like this happens. Would Catholics keep silent if a woman were sentenced to be burned at the stake for leaving Catholicism?
This is precisely the kind of idiotic, medieval mentality that Ayaan Hirsi Ali spent her career decrying—especially the complete disenfranchising of women in many Islamic countries. I’m now reading her book Infidel, and if you haven’t read it, I recommend doing so, especially if you think Brandeis had any good reason to withdraw her honorary degree. (BTW, do read Timothy Egan’s great criticism of the “commencement police” —which doesn’t mention Hirsi Ali—in yesterday’s New York Times.) Infidel is a terrific and eye-opening read, and makes it shockingly clear how women are treated as property, not as people, in places like Sudan, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia. I’ll add to that Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.
This behavior is incompatible with Englightenment values, humanism, and simple human decency. I consider Brandeis, by rescinding Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree, as complicit in this behavior, tacitly punishing her “Islamophobia” instead of rightfully lauding her fight for women’s rights under Islam—a fight that has forever cost her a normal life. She will be under armed guard until she dies (no thanks to Reza Aslan, the Islamic “moderate”).
Women like Meriam Yehya will continue to be lashed, stoned, and hanged until Islam becomes genuinely moderate, something that I don’t see happening in the near future.
And how can we even countenance any society in which half its members—those with two X chromosomes—aren’t allowed to follow their aspirations? In many places they’re forbidden from even getting an education. What a waste of human potential!
h/t: Barry
I am now in Kamloops, and the Imagine No Religion 4 conference begins today with a buffet dinner at 5 and then a panel at 7 pm on free will, where Professor Ceiling Cat will expound his controversial views on incompatibilism.
I’m told that last year the host of this year’s free will panel, philosopher Chris DiCarlo, gave his own argument about free will (I believe that he’s a hard determinist like me), and Dan Dennett got up during the question session and spent the whole 20 minutes attacking DiCarlo’s views. (Dennett, of course, is a compatibilist who has confected a view of human free will that is, to me, unconvincing.) I believe we’ll have a libertarian free-willer on this year’s panel. Tomorrow I talk on theology and science.
The schedule of talks for the conference looks great and refreshingly drama-less.
The weather is lovely, as is this small town. I flew from Chicago to Calgary (3.5 hours), and the following 1.25-hour hop on a propeller plane from Calgary to Kamloops took us right over the Canadian Rockies and several other mountain ranges. It was lovely and clear; here is one of many pictures I took from my window seat:
But I must relate something that happened to me at the Calgary airport.
Our plane was late from Chicago because of storm delays, and when I got to Calgary I found that I had to not only clear Canadian customs, but also go through another security check before getting on the plane to Kamloops. Because of that, and the confusing directions I got to security, I was late. By the time I got to security, there was a line of about fifty people waiting to have their bags x-rayed and bodies checked, and the checking was SLOW. They let in about one person every two minutes, and, at the end of the line, I realized that at that rate I would miss my plane.
For the first time in my life, I decided to try to jump the queue. I went to its head and asked the woman in charge (a member of what I guess is the Canadian equivalent of the TSA) if I could go ahead, as I was due at the gate in five minutes. I also showed her my boarding pass on which, at check-in, they’d written: “Be at gate at 2:00.” It was about 1:56.
She fixed me with a peremptory gaze and said, “Sorry, sir, there’s nothing I can do for you. You’ll have to get back in line.”
I slinked to the rear of the line again, finding my place, and fretted. But, watching the line’s slow progress, I wasn’t happy, and decided to try again. In five minutes I went back to the head of the line and literally begged the woman to let me through.
She gave me the same response, “Sorry, sir, there’s nothing I can do.” In other words, she’d rather make me miss my plane than allow me the courtesy of going ahead.
Determined not to give up, I turned around, addressed the first guy in line and asked him, “Excuse me, sir, but I’m about to miss my plane. Do you mind if I go ahead of you?” He said, “Sure!”
Happy that I had succeeded, I stood at the head of the line and waited my turn. But the Canadian official told me this: “Not so fast. You have to ask permission from everybody who was in line ahead of you.”
I was stunned. Really? For a second I sort of understood, for if you jump a queue you’re really going ahead of everyone, not just the first person in line, and Canadians are famous for their politeness in queues:
But at this point I wasn’t about to admit defeat. I walked all the way down the line, waving my boarding pass and shouting repeatedly, “I’m going to be late; does anybody mind if I go ahead of them?” No passenger objected.
At that point the Candian-TSA woman let me through. But screening was still slow, and I barely made my plane.
For a while I was just amused at what I thought was a vivid demonstration of the famous Canadian politeness (see cartoon above). But the more I think about it, the more I’m peeved that an official would rather have me miss my plane than go to the head of the line (something that is regularly allowed in the U.S. for late passengers). And it was a bit humiliating to have to walk that line asking everyone to let me pass.
I’m asking Canadian readers: is this normal behavior? Or was I simply the victim of an officious official who didn’t like what she saw as an obnoxious and pushy American?
Big trouble in Dobrzyn! My informants tell me that Cyrus the D*g and Hili are not getting along, with the result that they have to be locked in separate rooms. Further, Hili’s human staff must sleep in separate rooms, one with the d*g and the other with Hili. I am also informed that it may take months to get these animals used to each other, and Hili is forced to repair to high places, while the d*g knocks her bowl on the ground and noms her food.
Such is the perfidy of the d*g kind. My suggestion was to replace it with a donkey. Today’s dialogue describes the ongoing troubles:
Hili: We will become friends cautiously. For the moment I prefer to look at him from a safe height.
A: And when will you decide that life has returned to normal?
Hili: When he understands that he is allowed to lie on his bed when I’m not sleeping there.
Hili: Zaprzyjaźniamy się ostrożnie, chwilowo wolę na niego patrzeć z bezpiecznej wysokości.
Ja: A kiedy uznasz, że życie wróciło do normy?
Hili: Jak zrozumie, że może leżeć na swoim materacu, kiedy ja na nim nie śpię.
Reader Barry called my attention to this video, which appeared on Robert Krulwich’s National Public Radio website. The conversation begins 33 seconds in, and I believe these are Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis).
Look at the size of those paws!
Krulwich adds:
I looked up “lynx vocalizations” to find out why they sound like this. Apparently, explaining weird cat sounds is not yet a major scholarly pursuit. Mel and Fiona Sunquist, in their book Wild Cats of the World, say lynxes can “mew, spit, hiss and growl; they also yowl, chatter, wah-wah, gurgle, and purr.” But the Sunquists don’t say why. Another scholar, Gustav Peters, says lynx mating calls (Is that what we heard? Or was that just two lynxes yakking?) are “a series of intense mews.” Intense, for sure. Mews? Those lynxes weren’t mewing.
The lynx seem unperturbed by the light, which I find surprising.
~