Beard of the Week LXXXIV: Astrology Revealed
This week's beard belongs to the youthful Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), who established the intellectual starting point for this short discussion.
In Galileo's day [c. 1610], the study of astronomy was used to maintain and reform the calendar. Sufficiently advanced students of astronomy made horoscopes; the alignment of the stars was believed to influence everything from politics to health.
[David Zax, "Galileo's Vision", Smithsonian Magazine, August 2009.*]
Galileo published The Starry Messenger (Sidereus Nuncius), the book in which he reported his discovery of four new planets (i.e., moons) apparently orbiting Jupiter, in 1610. This business of looking at things and reporting on observations just didn't fit well with the prevailing Aristotelian view of nature and the way things were done.
Some of his contemporaries refused to even look through the telescope at all, so certain were they of Aristotle's wisdom. "These satellites of Jupiter are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can exercise no influence on the Earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist," proclaimed nobleman Francesco Sizzi. Besides, said Sizzi, the appearance of new planets was impossible—since seven was a sacred number: "There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head: two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth….From this and many other similarities in Nature, which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets must necessarily be seven."
[link as above]
Science as a an empirical pursuit was still a new idea, quite evidently.
At the time it was understood, for various "obvious" reasons (one of them apparently being that they could be seen), that the planets and the stars in the nearby "heavens" (rather literally) influenced things on Earth. There was no known reason why or how, but this wasn't a big issue because causality‡ didn't play a very large role in scientific explanations of the day. Recall, for instance, that heavier objects rushed faster to tall to Earth because it was their nature to do so.
What I suddenly realized awhile back (I was reading the book by Robert P, Crease, Great Equations, but I don't really remember what prompted the thoughts) is the following.
Received mysticism today claims that astrology, the practice of divination through observation of the motions of the planets, operates through the agency of some unknown, mysterious force as yet unknown to science. Science doesn't know everything!
But this is wrong. In the time of Galileo there was no known "force" to serve as the "cause" for the planets' effect on human life, but it seemed quite reasonable. In fact, the idea of "force" wasn't yet in the mental frame. The notion of "force" as it is familiar to us today only began to take shape with the work of Isaac Newton c. 1687, when he published his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which contained his theories of mechanics and gravitation, theories where the idea of "force" began to take shape, and to develop the ideas of causality.
But the notion that there is no known mechanism through which astrology might work we now see is wrong. The mechanism, arrived at by Newton, which handily explained virtually everything about how the planets moved and exerted their influence on everything in the known universe, was that of universal gravitation.
The one thing that universal gravitation did not explain was astrology. But even worse, this brilliant theory showed that the universal force behind planetary interaction and influence was much, much too small to have any influence whatsoever on humans and their lives.
Newton debunked astrology over 300 years ago by discovering its mechanism and finding that it could not possibly have the influence that its adherents claimed.
Some people, of course, are a little slow to catch up with modern developments.
———-
* This is an interesting article that accompanies a virtual exhibit, "Galileo's Instruments of Discovery", adjunct to a physical exhibit at the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia).
‡ Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that our modern notion of causes was quite a bit different from 15th century notions of causes.
In: All, Beard of the Week, It's Only Rocket Science
Cautious Play is Bad Strategy
Today's headlines on stories that interest me brings a curious convergence between 1) health-care reform and 2) marriage equality. Advocates of both have for far too long played a strategy of holding back and not moving as quickly, boldly, and energetically as they can until they feel that "the votes are there". Alas, the votes will not be there without the commitment and the push that attracts them.
On health-care reform: Obama, seen as the bold, audacious candidate, ran on an idea of implementing universal health care. We elected him both for the idea and for the bold, uncompromising stance. And now, time drags on, the "debate" has dipped into Hitlerisms, and Obama has lost the confidence of an energized electorate by looking for bipartisan compromises and "workable" solutions — rather than plowing ahead and doing what's right to do.
Now is his chance to return to the bold vision. Having offered even to throw out any sort of "public option", it's time to seize the moment, throw out everything that congress thinks might have been negotiated or settled, wipe that slate clean, and make the bold call for a simple, straightforward, no-euphemisms universal, single-payer health-care plan for America.
It would take guts and vision, but the outcome and rewards would be startling, and it's clear that this is the time to move, right now, on such a tactic.
Also today is the story about Ted Olson and David Boies' lawering for the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit challenging the constitutional validity of Proposition 8. What was settled today was that several LGBT advocacy groups that had petitioned U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to intervene in the case were denied. (Some background.) This makes those groups, who see themselves as the standard bearers in the fight for LGBT equality, unhappy.
I'm only mildly surprised to report that it doesn't make me unhappy and that I see it as a well-earned comeuppance.
These are the same groups who have spent years trying to conserve their assets, reserve their energies, get behind a single strategy that they thought would move LGBT rights forward in this country. They have been singularly ineffective in doing that, at the same time that they have been very good at wasting money and time. None of them have been behind any initiative that saw breakthroughs in LGBT equality.
As many of us remember vividly, these were also the same groups who denounced the move Olson and Boies were making by filing the lawsuit. The time was not right! A bad result could only set us back! The votes aren't there yet!
"Honey," we said, "those votes ain't never gonna be there!"
A bold vision creates its own path.
At the time Olson and Boies went ahead, pushing aside those milquetoast concerns with a bold, forge-ahead, the-time-is-always-right-for-civil-rights approach. Months later, after the writing on the wall had been carved in stone, those groups petitioned to intervene so that their "expertise" could be available. Happily, today, they were excluded from this particular effort, a move that I think will only strengthen this case.
On the LGBT-equality front, a single, coordinate national strategy for achieving, say, marriage equality is as deadly as letting farmers grow only one variety of corn. The best strategy is multiple strategies carried forward by as many different groups of people with as many different groups of ideas as we can manage.
Right now the anti-proposition 8 effort in California is stymied by the question of whether to move for a new referendum in 2010 or 2012. The predictable question: when will the votes be there?
That's entirely the wrong question, for equality or for real health-care reform. The answer, however, seems likely to be that it's always the right time to do the right thing.
In: All, Current Events, Reflections
Hitler Fatigue
Friends of mine who are of a certain age–hence, in their prime–who were active Usenet denizens in the early 1990s, are familiar with Godwin's Law from being there in the flame wars. In essence: the longer a Usenet discussion lasts, the probability of a comparison to Hitler approaches one.
It is generally understood by all, except the one who makes the unfortunate comparison, that doing so ends the "discussion" and loses the argument for the one who mentioned Hitler.
And so there is heightened buzz surrounding reports of the woman at a healthcare townhall meeting silly enough to ask Barney Frank, of all people, "Why are you supporting this nazi policy?" while holding a photo of President Obama with a little Hitler-esque toothbrush mustache added. (Her words were, of course, recorded for her later humiliation.)
Godwin's Law encapsulates the idea, quite evidently, that Hitler and Nazism are the ultimate examples of evil, the absolute worst that human beings are capable of, the evil that trumps all evil.
As a simple corollary it follows therefore that once the Hitler comparison is made there is no place left to go, no room left on the escalating scale of fright-mongering rhetoric. The peak has been reached and the argument is over. One can try to continue but what we might call "Hitler fatigue" is certain to set in, the comparisons lose all force and there is no substitute. (One can try, naturally, to make a comparison to Stalin, Edi Amin, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein combined, but it just doesn't carry the load that Hitler can single handedly.)
Does this mean that hysterical conservatism has lost the argument? Have they finally conceded that they've "lost their country" and a new, liberal, multicultural nation that accepts and nurtures all its citizens might emerge?
One can only hope. Certainly the strident rhetoric from the conservative swamp has escalated continually for the past several years. The needle on the meter long ago entered the red-line zone thanks to the efforts of certain radio personalities, pundits, and "writers". Now it sounds like the needle is just about pinned at the "Hitler" reading.
I'll be interested in seeing whether the denizens of the swamp pull back from this Hitler precipice to give themselves a bit of room still to yell and protest, or whether they plunge headlong over into the abyss. I admit that it would be nice to hear their voices recede as they fall into the bottomless chasm.
In: All, Current Events, Laughing Matters
It Wasn't a Heart Attack
Over a week ago (8–9 August, to be precise), I spent the night in the hospital, finding out what the vague "observation and test" might mean in my case.
For a couple of days I'd been having some vague, not terribly threatening sounding symptoms, mainly a persistent feeling of light-headedness–not dizziness, but more a tendency towards feeling somewhat faint, as though lying down might be more comfortable than standing. This was accompanied by a light ache in my jaw / throat area. My throat felt a bit constricted and my appetite was suppressed.
The quick summary is that I felt somewhat odd, in ways that I don't normally feel, and it had persisted pretty much for a good part of Friday and most of Saturday. These vague symptoms are all things that, normally, would add up to nothing much unless one happened to have a history of heart disease and diabetes.
Of course, I have had a heart attack and I am diabetic. In that case, taken together, they might indicate a quiet sort of heart attack. That thought started making me feel anxious and so we visited the emergency room about 8pm on the Saturday evening.
Have you ever noticed that everyone who greets you at the ER says "Hi, how are you?" I want someone to yell "Not well–I'm in the emergency room, after all!", but everyone says "oh, fine." I was gratified that reporting symptoms of a possible heart attack got me some very swift attention, at least until it seemed that I might not be in extreme need.
Immediate signs said it didn't look like a heart attack. I was very interested to learn that a blood test for specific enzymes produced during an infarction showed nothing, where we certainly would have expected something after a day's worth of symptoms. Nitroglycerin tablets had some effect, but not profoundly so since there seemed to be no angina present.
I was checked in for overnight "observation and testing" at about 2am. Fortunately we knew that would be happening so Isaac got to go home about 12:30, good since he needed to work all morning Sunday, being a church musician.
I had a good, late night chat with my "observation unit" nurse, Carol. I even got a little sleep before being awakened at 7:30 to say that we wouldn't do the stress test yet because there was something a little "funny" about my EKG.
We did more EKGs and then found from my cardiology records that one should expect my EKG to look a little "funny". So there. I hate being entirely normal.
So we did the nuclear stress test, a thing far from the top of my list of fun medical tests. (I much prefer a sedate echocardiogram.) This was the version using the treadmill, and I do believe it was the first time I'd done this test and got all the way to my target heart-rate (of 170) without passing out or getting sick. Progress!
It was a test worth doing because it had been a couple of years since my last one, but it also suggested that whatever was going on, it was not cardiac related. Results were looked at, discussed, worked over, and all decided that I could go home that afternoon. Isaac and our friend Richard arrived about 2 or so, and we left about 3, ably discharged by my fun day-nurse, whose name escapes me at the moment.
Such trips are not typically described as fun, but this one I found about as not unpleasant as it could get. The facility was at the Anne Arundel Medical Center in Annapolis, MD, and this time at least I found all the staff I encountered to be friendly, attentive, and caring. I thank them for that.
Of course, there's still the problem of the mysterious symptoms, which haven't disappeared entirely but haven't been as persistent since. We're pretty certain that it's not a heart event, but it will take a little more investigate to figure out what's not quite right and why I feel a little odd. I'm hoping for some clever ideas soon.
"Better Off" in Iraq?
Human Rights Watch issued a report ("They Want Us Exterminated", 17 August 2009) with the subtitle "Murder, Torture, Sexual Orientation and Gender in Iraq".
From the introduction:
A killing campaign moved across Iraq in the early months of 2009. While the country remains a dangerous place for many if not most of its citizens, death squads started specifically singling out men whom they considered not "manly" enough, or whom they suspected of homosexual conduct. The most trivial details of appearance-the length of a man's hair, the fit of his clothes-could determine whether he lived or died.
We've known, through scattered news reports and smuggled blog postings that this has been going on. The Iraqi government seems uninterested in doing anything about it. The US Government, amidst rumors / reports that US soldiers have been involved in the abuse and murder.
Reporting on the report, the Washington Post wrote
Although the scope of the problem remains unclear, hundreds of gay men may have been killed this year in predominantly Shiite Muslim areas, the report's authors said, basing their conclusion on interviews with gay Iraqi men, hospital officials and an unnamed United Nations official in Baghdad.
"The government has done absolutely nothing to respond," said Scott Long, director of the gay rights program at Human Rights Watch. "So far there has been pretty much a stone wall."
Homosexuality was tacitly accepted during the last years of Saddam Hussein's rule, but Iraqis have long viewed it as taboo and shameful.
[Ernesto Londoño, "Gay Men Targeted In Iraq, Report Says", Washington Post, 17 August 2009.]
We recall vividly, of course, the Bush rhetoric about Hussein used to justify the war, but one is forced now to wonder: are gay men better off in Iraq than they were eight years ago?
In: All, Current Events, Reflections
Inspiration, Courage, & Democracy
Ever since the fight last year in California over Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that took away marriage equality, the christian supremacists have been nervous. They seem to remember only the good old days when homophiles cowered in darkened stairways on disreputable streets, rather than the new, improved post-Stonewall generation of gays and lesbians and transgendered and others who are just tired of all their shit and don't want to put up with it anymore.
Thus, to their surprise, there was a gay backlash against the hate and homophobia. People on the side of equality have protested, accused, and boycotted, and the boycotts have been unexpectedly successful. Some of us will even admit to a bit of schadenfreude at the shocked and hurt alacrity with which the Mormon Church, proud funders of anti-gay initiatives across the US, pulled back into its shell, trying to avoid the glare of attention and accountability.
And now I read* that the anti-gay crowd in Washington State, the ones who have rushed to create a ballot initiative to keep that state's new domestic partnership law from going into effect (lest more people find happiness), are petitioning "the state's Public Disclosure Commission to keep the names of their donors secret because they say the supporters have received threats."
"Threats", in this instance, typically means such as "threats of economic boycott", but always said in a vague and dark way to imply as much menace and violent imagery as they can muster. It's more bluster and a threat to democracy.
We have, in America, a strong tradition of openness in our legal and government processes, even when secrecy is much desired. Except in the rarest of cases, the accused are guaranteed the right to face their accuser in court. Those who fund political campaigns are required, as much as they try to get around it, to have their names known so that all of us can know who's trying to buy influence.
And, in public initiatives like this, who supports the initiative, whether by contributions or by signing petitions, is a matter of public record. Or should be.
I am surprised by the number of people who want to take away my civil rights who feel they should suffer no opposition, no disapprobation, no criticism whatsoever. I have nothing good to say about such people so this paragraph ends here.
Neither do I have any sympathy whatsoever for those who want to restrict my rights and freedoms as an American citizen but refuse to do it openly and publicly lest they be taken to task for their sanctimonious attitudes. Their whiny complaints of persecution find my ears stone deaf.
Forty years ago, in this country, within my lifetime, homosexuality was both a mental illness and a crime. That has changed slowly through the intervening decades–at least in law if not entirely in attitude–because of the courage and sacrifices of untold numbers of gays and lesbians and other sexual outlaws, people whose persecution was violent, bloody, often fatal. Too much of it still continues to this day. Vague talk of "threats", indeed.
Just a few days ago, another slap from another group of christian supremacists; the details you can find in the posting at Pam's House Blend ("Concerned Women for America waving a pistol at ENDA. Literally", 12 August 2009). This time they were riled up over the proposed legislation known as ENDA ("The Employment Non-Descrimination Act"), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual identity.
First we were asked to make some sense of this deranged logic
Societies that lose respect for marriage eventually lose creative energy derived from the delayed gratification that strengthens families. Instead, people strive for immediate, sensory pleasure, and societies become less dynamic and fertile. Government grows bigger to pick up the pieces and create grounds for even greater hegemony.
Perhaps it was supposed to distill to this: "To put it more simply, a statute that directly contradicts God's moral law is illegitimate."
What was more shocking to some of us, but increasingly commonplace in our current, radical-conservative mode of discourse, the referenced article was accompanied by an image of a hand gun.
A "treat" perhaps? Or an actual threat. Later the image was removed; I feel certain that in the usual way it would be dismissed as a "joke" gone awry.
This past week the President honored, among other role-model Americans, Harvey Milk with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. (A nice essay at Law Dork.) This dismayed many, of course, but I felt immensely proud for it. Milk was the first openly gay man elected to a government office in the country.
Milk faced threats but he worked for what he believed in openly and courageously. He is an inspiration to a great many of us; he should be an inspiration to all Americans.
———-
* Rachel LaCorte, "Wash. gay partnership foes want donor names secret", The Seattle Times, undated but c. 12 August 2009.]
In: All, Faaabulosity, Reflections
"It Should be Stopped"
I dislike taking an entire blog posting and quoting it; I hope I can be forgiven. I see no need to amplify this remark with any comment on the history of intellectual achievement in senators from Pennsylvania.
"I am tired of all this thing called science. … We have spent millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be stopped."
– Pennsylvania senator Simon Cameron, opposing funding for the Smithsonian Institution, 1861
[from Greg Ross, "Unquote", Futility Closet, 14 August 2009.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Laughing Matters
Dingell on Racism & Health-Care Townhall Mobs
Michigan congressman John Dingell on "Coundown", with Keith Olbermann (segment on "Racism in the Public Square", c. 12 August 2009), explained that the staged "disruptions" at health-care town halls–his in particular–reminded him of a previous experience:
Well, the last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the Civil Rights Bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan and folks, and white supremacists, and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble.
(seen at Joe.My.God)
In: All, Common-Place Book, Current Events
Scienticity for Laughs
I enjoy meeting new people in the same of scienticity; I try for one new person a day. Today I made the acquaintance of Irish comedian Dara OBriain (thanks to BoingBoing). He doesn't know me yet but I've enjoyed watching him on YouTube and now Dara and I will demonstrate that a good scientific outlook need not be dull–it can be very funny.
OBriain points out that he's a dweeby, numbers-kind of guy, and it's clear that he's annoyed at the science illiteracy he sees exhibited around him all the time. Fortunately, he makes fun of it. In one version of his routine (that video, about 11 minutes), he begins by saying "There's a general lack of knowledge about science."
I certainly won't disagree. When he talks about the idea of "gaps" in science he quite sensibly says "Science knows it doesn't know everything–otherwise it'd stop."
Here's a 6.5-minute version of the routine, high in scienticity, that touches on: "fear of zombies", "people who remove their own teeth", "quack, witch-doctor, homeopath horseshit peddler (it's water!)", "herbal medicine", and "journalistic 'balance' ". As noted at BoingBoing, there is some "salty" language involved. (The video embedded below comes from here.)
In: All, Laughing Matters, Snake Oil--Cheap!, Speaking of Science
Who Stands?
Now I'm confused — again. It happens so easily these days.
I read (via Towleroad: "Arlen Specter Health Care Town Hall Nearly Gets Physical") that the loudest, angriest white male at Arlen Specter's recent healthcare townhall meeting shouted: "One day, God's gonna stand before you. And he's gonna judge you…".
Now, I am just an uneducated atheist rube but it's always been my understanding that the dearly departed stands before God who, being Lord, sits in judgement. I'm thinking there's a throne involved, and isn't Jesus, who is his son and himself both, sits at his right hand (i.e., god sits beside himself)?
I see now that fundamentalist theology can be very complicated. Oh dear–if only it were rocket science.
In: All, Current Events, Will Rogers Moments
Stephen Hawking Erroneously Found Dead in "Death Panel" Marketing
How interesting. I learned from Avedon Carol (who learned from Wonkette….) of an editorial in the Investor's Business Daily that, in explaining how government-run-healthcare "death panels" wold imperil your grandmother's life, used as the centerpiece of it argument that famed physicist Stephen Hawking, whose life is challenged with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease) would be dead today if he had to live under the UK's socialized healthcare system.
Of course, this is a major gaffe since Stephen Hawking, who is still very much alive, does live under the much-reviled-by-conservatives UK's socialized healthcare plan. Should this small, tiny, insignificant error of fact cast any doubt on the rest of the editorial about "death panels" in Obamacare"s socialism?
Quite evidently the word got back quickly to IBD; I had to go to the Google cache to find the original version because a "correction" had already been applied by the time I got to their website. Here's the original:
The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script.
The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."
One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on.
The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care.
People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
The British are praised for spending half as much per capita on medical care. How they do it is another matter. The NICE people say that Britain cannot afford to spend $20,000 to extend a life by six months. So if care will cost $1 more, you get to curl up in a corner and die.
[editorial, "How House Bill Runs Over Grandma", Investor's Business Daily, "Posted Friday, July 31, 2009 4:20 PM PT", from the google cache.
Now, in the "corrected" editorial (at this link that, oddly, still carries the original posting date even though the complete text is obviously of a later date that is nowhere indicated), the paragraph I've bolded above has simply disappeared.
What's more, there is now a note from the editor:
Editor's Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.
Now the fabulous rhetorical question: Do you think the "error" was merely that of implying that Hawking did not live in the UK, or do you think that the error was more along the lines of using the great reputation of Hawking in a misguided effort to smear the very good socialized healthcare system in the UK — the socialized healthcare system, by the way, that has kept Hawking alive all these years! — in an underhanded attempt to smear the idea of a public-health option in the US by promoting the ridiculous idea that "death panels" would evaluate your granny's social worth before carting her off to make soylent green?
Tsk tsk tsk. I would offer the IBD a nice shovel to dig their own hole a little deeper but shovels available for this purpose in the healtcare "debate" seem to be in rather short supply at the moment, what with so many being used to dig up the grassroots for astroturf.
[Update, 12 August:] Hawking, still alive, is quoted in the Guardian [UK] (Hugh Muir, "Diary", 11 August 2009) as saying
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
Is this a trustworthy attribution? Has anyone seen Hawking's birth certificate? Or, maybe more appropriately, Hawking's death certificate? Speaking of which, I don't think I've ever seen one for Elvis!
[Update, 13 August:] I couldn't pass up the chance to add a link to Geoffrey Pullum's piece ("Damn speech synthesizer" 13 August 2009) at Language Log on the issue of Hawking's citizenship, synthesized accent, and lack of actual death. I'm still surprised that the "death-panel palinists" didn't demand to see Hawking's actual death certificate. Tsk.
In: All, Current Events, Laughing Matters, Raised Eyebrows Dept., Will Rogers Moments
Who Took Whose Country?
Rachel Maddow told me that, according to the SEC, the profits of health insurance companies were $2.4 Billion in 2000, but $12.7 Billion in 2007. This is only a 429% increase, almost keeping pace with inflation. (I watched the segment at Joe.My.God.)
She also notes that by 2007 the average compensation of the CEO of one of those companies was $11.9 Million (each). Since that's only enough to buy a health insurance policy for about 4,700 of the 46 Million uninsured Americans (one-hundredth of a percent), perhaps we should just gloss over that figure as insignificant.
Why in the world would I distrust the motivation of health-insurance companies who have, oh, a billion dollars to spend buying congress people to convince me that they don't need no competition from a public option in health care?
But, truth to tell, I can easily understand the motivation of the insurance companies and if I had a billion in loose change to make sure my profits would keep going up, you can be sure I'd buy myself a baker's dozen of congress people. It is, as I've said before, mere chump change. Personally I'm a single-payer advocate but if "health care" were my business and I made $12 Million a year doing it, I suppose my priorities might change.
What I cannot understand is this small number of loud and angry white people, many of them living comfortably on their social-security checks and happy with their Medicare coverage, who are so ready to jump into the astroturf fray funded by–who else but the "health-care" insurers?–and denounce universal health insurance in the US as "socialism", "government run" [!], "living like a european", and even seemingly believe incredibly crazy hyperbole about things like "death panels" for forced euthanasia and mandated sex-change operations for everyone.
It's all summarized so ironically by that man shouting "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Are these people just really so skilled at believing something impossible before breakfast, White Queen style?
One thing that certainly unifies liberal and conservative political metaphysics is this: we both know that the other excels at holding contradicting positions and believing in things that are obviously not believable, let alone possibly true.
And so, as a liberal, I face with incredulity the fact that so many people will be so emotionally attached to doing something that is so not in their self interest. Why the fierce loyalty of some very not wealthy people to voting Republican?
Why this incredible anger, not to mention the incredible effort of believing such contradictory things, at the idea that a government-run health-care system might be as popular as the government-run Medicare and perhaps more affordable and more available to these very people than the current cesspool of private "health-care" insurers making obscene profits off their very backs?
Among these groups the notion of getting their country "back" is a very popular rallying cry. It would seem like a reasonable goal, and I'd be happy for them to have it back, if only they would realize who had taken their country in the first place.
In: All, Current Events, Will Rogers Moments
"The Buried Nose" and "Eye for Science": Scienticity Updates
I have managed in the last few weeks to make a little progress on matter concerning Ars Hermeneutica. (Updating the company website is not one of them, however.)
On the book note front, there were some enhancements and new features that appeared some little while back that I didn't mention. Among all the fascinating notes about books of some scienticity, we now have two about audio books of interest, and, thanks to Joanne Manaster, we have nearly a dozen video book notes, for those who'd rather listen and watch their notes (or just like listening to Joanne's beguiling voice). We also now list notes from each contributor to the collection.
There are right now 28 contributors, who are responsible for 193 book notes. Many of those contributors came to us thanks to the science book challenge.
Announcement: you can join the challenge at any time (see the page at the last of the previous links), or simply send us your book notes about interesting books with some scienticity. (Book note submissions here.)
While on the subject of book notes and the challenge, I wanted to point out that I have started a new blog at scienticity, its topic concerned with all things related to science books, science reading, science writing, and our book-notes project, including the challenge.
The blog is called "The Buried Nose", a nod to my mother's memory. Like many moms, I'm sure, she often had occasion to say to me: "Wouldn't you rather go outside and play? Must you always have your nose buried in some book?"
So the nose (as I think of it) is just getting started and I haven't set aside much time to work on it as a routine thing yet. It does, though, give me another outlet for using an "Eye for Science" widget. Yes! You can have one too! Just click at left in the box on the text "Steal this Widget!"
Speaking of Eye for Science, that project is coming along well enough since its inception less than two months ago. Between the 19 members we've put together a quickly growing collection of nearly 150 images and little stories of scienticity so far.
Announcement: please do have a look at the group page, browse the images, join the group if you support our mission, and submit some images if you have some in your photostream.
These projects are small but can have significance beyond their size. Participation is easy, rewarding, and non-monetary* (Here's how to contribute.) These community building projects, by means of which I hope to excite sparks of curiosity among people who could use a little scienticity, are important to me and I'd love to have y'all participate in some way.
More generally, information about these projects gets gathered (as I find time to organize and post it) at the Scienticity Project site, or at the Scienticity Cause facebook page.
———-
* But of course we never turn down any financial assistance. A reminder: Ars Hermeneutica, Limited is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation with a mission to promote science literacy.
In: All, It's Only Rocket Science, Personal Notebook
Mozart Hated It–We Should Love It?
Somewhere in my top-10 of all-time vapid pieces of music is Mozart's concerto for flute and harp, K. 299, in c major. It is dull, totally devoid of inspiration, and defines the tedious listening experience.
Virtually every radio announcer who introduces this playlist favorite will point out how much Mozart is reputed to have hated the flute. And then the announcer chuckles as though this is the last word in musical-genius irony and on they go to play the piece.
Okay: Mozart hated the flute, why should we listen to it play this work? It's exceptionally clear from his writing how much Mozart disliked this instrument–every note, every melody, every orchestral turn displays an utter indifference to wasting even a drop of his composing talent.
Perhaps it is thought that this concerto might partake of the Queen-of-the-Night syndrome, in which we understand that Mozart so despised the soprano who would play the role in the premier of "The Magic Flute" that he wrote an aria to torture her with as much unsingable music as his genius could generate. And, of course, it's a fabulous coloratura tour-de-force for those who can negotiate it nowadays.
But you see the difference, of course. Mozart worked at torturing that soprano musically and the outcome is brilliant pyrotechnics. In the silly flute and harp concerto his indifference to expending any musicianship on the commission is so evident that he would have phoned it in had phones been invented. The work is so dull that I suspect even Salieri would have quickly disavowed it should it have been mistakenly attributed to him.
Why did I think to mention this now? The wretched concerto was just beginning on the radio station that I had been listening to.
In: All, Music & Art, Splenetics
Friday Soirée: Feynman & Villa-Lobos
Let us have now a little soirée, a short program of ideas and music to cheer up my rather drab Friday evening. On tonight's program, Richard Feynman and Heitor Villa-Lobos.
The Feynman bits are both excerpts from a BBC series called "Fun to Imagine" (1983), in which Feynman is interviewed and talks about all sorts of things. If you'd like to hear more, the YouTube pages for the following will lead you to them.
1. Feynman on Magnets and "Why Questions"
The interviewer says that when he pushes two magnets towards each other, he feels something there; he asks "What is it?" Feynman tries to explain why he finds it difficult to give a satisfying explanation, which is fun enough. But lurking behind his exposition are a few other, profound ideas.
At the root, perhaps, is the idea of scientific reductionism, that everything in the natural world can be explained in terms of more fundamental phenomena, and that those in turn can be further explained in terms of still-more-fundamental phenomena, etc. (In fact, its turtles all the way down.)
What goes along with the reductionism is an interesting aspect of abstraction: when we talk with each other and explain things, we are always explaining then at some level of abstraction. Good explainers, good teachers, good technical presenters, are all able to choose a level of abstraction that will suit their audience.
There's also a manifestation in this reductionism of the idea that many, many, many ideas in a scientific explanation of the natural world are interconnected in uncountably many different ways, forming an interlocking understanding of what's going on. Crackpot theorists–let's include "intelligent-design" creationists and global-warming deniers–never seem to understand this, being quite willing to overthrow part of the system or replace it with some absurd notion they've dreamed up without regard to all the other connections said idea has in the vast web of scientific ideas. (This was something I was trying to get at in my posting "The Majestic Unity of the Natural World", but I don't think I managed very well. I'll have to give it more thought someday and try to say it all more clearly.)
But that's enough background for this 7-minute segment, ideas that came to me while I listened and might trigger something while you're listening.
2. Villa-Lobos: Bachianas Brasileiras #5, for Soprano & Eight Cellos
This is a short piece piece in two parts, "Aria" ("Cantilena") and "Danca (Martelo)", that I love to play for people who have never heard it. It exists in many arrangements but this, I believe original form, with accompaniment by eight celli is my favorite, and not just because I'm a cellist.
We will listen to the first part, the "Cantilena", a song without words. The harmonies and pizzicato lines merge to give the most remarkably rich timbre, and the melody can haunt me for days. After a contrasting middle section, the lyrical opening is reprised with the soprano humming, an effect that always gives me tingles, particularly the final note of the piece. (About the piece with an image of the opening page; from a website devoted to Villa-Lobos.)
This is a beautiful performance that I only discovered this evening, by soprano Bidu Sayão. One commenter tells us that she was the soprano for whom Villa-Lobos wrote the piece in 1938 (the first movement; the second was added in 1945), and that Villa-Lobos was conducting the ensemble, featuring Leonard Rose as the solo cellist, for this performance. Evidently it's an earlier recording but the presence of the sound is quite nice and it's easy to hear all the parts in the cello ensemble (compared to many performances that tend towards muddiness).
3. Feynman on Trains
After that refreshment, we're back to Feynman from the same BBC series. This is a very short (2 minutes) but very fun segment in which Feynman asks the question you didn't even know needed asking: "What keeps the train on the track?", and then gives the answer that even elicited a "humph" from me. (Clue: "Did you ever see the differential on a train?") I think I'll be using this explanation at dinner parties for some time to come.
In: All, Friday Soirée, It's Only Rocket Science, Music & Art
Positive Procrastination
[What follows is an essay I evidently wrote about five years ago. I was surprised to get to the end and find that I have done just what I said I should do, even though it's taken some time and I haven't hired the staff yet. All things in the fullness of time….]
Yesterday morning I woke up thinking about procrastination, for some reason, perhaps from reviewing the long list of things I'd been wanting to get done recently, and I thought I'd write a few notes. This morning I woke up thinking about procrastination again, probably because I hadn't written about it yesterday.
I am a world-class procrastinator, always have been. But what does that mean, I asked myself. Certainly it can describe the fact that I frequently have lists of outstanding tasks that have been outstanding for some time before I get around to completing them.
It seems to me that the language of procrastination is oddly positive, as though "procrastination" is a sin of commission rather than a sin of omission. There are times when I look at some pending tasks and think that I'll do some later rather than now — but how does that differ from prioritizing? In intent rather than fact, it would seem. But note how everyone seems to treat "to procrastinate" as though it's a very active verb, as though one is continually making decisions to keep putting something off. You know, it just doesn't work that way, and I suspect that this approach to the verb is a vast conspiracy among tedious, extroverted, let's-do-it-now! kinds of people, those who seem to flail about a lot but accomplish very little despite all their activity. (There are, of course, people I secretly envy who speed through tasks and accomplish a great deal, but that seems about as inscrutable to me as rocket science apparently does to normal people.)
I prefer to take up each task in the fullness of time and the ripeness of priorities. Have you ever noticed that there are frequently urgent tasks that, if they mature a bit, are discovered to be not so urgent after all? Recognizing true urgency rather than manufactured urgency takes careful consideration, in my opinion.
But, still, I'd generally be recognized as a procrastinator. Sure, there are reasons — or excuses, if you prefer, it doesn't matter much to me what you call them.
In my advancing dotage I've been becoming ever more absent-minded; while I've always been a bit too much on the absent-minded-scientist side of things, it only seems to be getting worse. It's similar to the familiar refrigerator amnesia: standing in front of the open refrigerator wondering how and why one is there. Well, things I think of fly out of my head in no time at all — a few seconds can be enough. I have some idea I want to remember, I reach for my pocket notepaper to write it down, and half the time it's gone before I get the paper out of my pocket.
There's some single-mindedness, oddly enough. Years ago I used to think that I was not very good at concentrating on a particular task, but that's not really true. I don't know whether I've changed or my self-perception has changed, but sometimes now my concentration can be consuming and immediate. Oh, I think, let's take a short break and call, say, for a doctor's appointment. Whoosh! Before I know it my mind is back to work on some absorbing task and it quickly turns into evening, tomorrow, next week, or next month. I could, of course, make notes and task lists but … (see the previous paragraph).
Yes, there's good, old-fashioned avoidance, too. There are many things that I'm quite good at avoiding these days, particularly things that need doing but cost money, since I try to minimize cash outflow while I have so little cash inflow. That sort of avoidance also depends on whether I'm feeling more or less depressed; avoidance was high on my list of coping tactics a couple of years ago, but the dark clouds are substantially reduced these days compared to those days.
So, I'm working on coming to a new, self-empowering understanding. Coupled with my absent- and single-mindedness, it's also the case that I tend to work rather slowly on my projects in progress, largely because so many of them are in progress at the same time. Over long time periods — sometimes approaching geological time-scales, it seems — I've discovered that things I'm doing do get done. I could, I suppose, try to make progress of fewer fronts simultaneously, but I have way too many things I want to get done to attempt that.
Sometimes I think that maybe my only recourse is to start a company to work on lots of these projects, and hire some employees to remember things for me.
What a lucky coincidence that that's one of the projects that I'm working on!
Please, Link Me to George Soros
Sometimes I save little bits of this and that from my reading, thinking to write something about it. Sometimes I even get around to it, too.
The evangelical right can wallow in denial all they want about Palin being victimized by liberals or Democrats or even George Soros (some illiterate wingnut recently tried to link me to him)….
[Geoffrey Dunn, "The Real Story Behind Palin's Bombshell", Huffington Post, 4 July 2009.]
There are at least a couple of reasons why I'd like to be linked to George Soros. Or more.
It would mean doing my part to tweak the nose of wingnuttery, of course, and ironic insolence is a favorite tactic of mine. We know what a bogey man Soros is for conservatives–what power to get blamed as the force behind every other absurd wingnut conspiracy theory!
There's the obvious money angle–Soros has lots, I don't–although my needs aren't great. Perhaps he'd like to support the science literacy work of Ars Hermeneutica.
The big reason, though, is philosophical. I don't mean liberalism and such things that we mostly agree on, George and I.
I mean Karl Popper (1902–1994), the philosopher. (A nice intellectual biography.) Both George and I hold Popper's ideas very close to our own intellectual hearts, believing that they were significant developments in the history of idea.
In George's case it would be Popper's ideas about "The Open Society" (on which he wrote a two-volume work, The Open Society and its Enemies. It's no coincidence that his "Open Society Institute" is called that. Popper's ideas on democracy are significant and influential.
For my part, though, it's Popper the philosopher of science who really moves me intellectually. Early in his career he considered what he called the "Demarcation Problem", by which he meant "how can one distinguish between science and pseudo-science?" His major work on the topic was The Logic of Scientific Discovery (originally, in German, Logik der Forschung, 1935); most of his ideas are discussed somewhat less technically in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963). Not to condense it all too much, this is where the idea of "falsifiability" as the key characteristic of a "scientific theory" originated. Popper is the only philosopher of science I've read whose writing convinced me that he really understood how science gets done.
And so I have this unrequited attraction to George Soros because I feel that we must be philosophical soul mates. If you happen to see him could you let him know that I'd like to do lunch sometime?
In: All, Hermeneutics, Reflections
APA Disses "Ex-Gay Therapy" in No Uncertain Terms
Just a few days ago the American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution saying, basically, that claims for the success of "ex-gay therapy"* have no scientific merit.
Quoting from the APA press release‡
TORONTO—The American Psychological Association adopted a resolution Wednesday stating that mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.
The "Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts" also advises that parents, guardians, young people and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and instead seek psychotherapy, social support and educational services "that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth."
This finding was the result of scrutiny by an APA task force (formed in 2007) of the scientific literature:
The task force examined the peer-reviewed journal articles in English from 1960 to 2007, which included 83 studies. Most of the studies were conducted before 1978, and only a few had been conducted in the last 10 years. The group also reviewed the recent literature on the psychology of sexual orientation.
"Unfortunately, much of the research in the area of sexual orientation change contains serious design flaws," Glassgold said. "Few studies could be considered methodologically sound and none systematically evaluated potential harms."
Predictably, some groups who practice and support "ex-gay therapy" are upset about this finding and have rushed into the fray with their own tut-tutting press releases. In particular, this sentence from the group "Exodus" caught my eye (quoted at Good As You, "Don't impose on us, says group who calls homosexuality dangerous to America's national health", 6 August 2009–I don't care to link to the "Exodus" website):
"The role of religion and the importance of faith cannot be understated when it comes to the ongoing dialogue over sexual and gender identity," said [Exodus president Alan Chambers].
Now, in case my intention is not immediately clear, I wish solely to make mock of this amusing Freudian slip on the part of Mr. Chambers. Of course, the usual cliche would be to say that "the importance of faith cannot be overstated", meaning that, try as one might, one is not able to wear out the welcome of something so important by saying it over and over and over and over (as Exodus is wont to do anyway).
This "cannot be understated" formula is far more amusing, saying, as it does, that the role of religion and faith in this context are so insignificant and unimportant that one is not able to estimate their tiny contribution in sufficiently small amounts. (One presumes he meant "…must not be understated".)
For once I find myself agreeing with what Mr. Chambers has said in this sentence.
———-
* If you're like me, a term like "ex-gay therapy" is ambiguous; in this instance it refers to the efforts of some groups and therapists, generally self-described as "christian", to try leading people away from the "gay lifestyle" and into what they see as a heterosexual, christian-concordant lifestyle. NB: they rarely, if ever claim to make gay people straight, instead announcing a successful "cure" if the gay patient managed to avoid sex with men for awhile, i.e., "leaving the lifestyle". Obviously there's way too much baggage there to open up and examine in this tiny footnote.
‡ "INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION CHANGE EFFORTS WORK, SAYS APA : Practitioners Should Avoid Telling Clients They Can Change from Gay to Straight",
APA Press Release, 5 August 2009 [source].
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity
Egg Salad
Once a year about this time Isaac goes off for a few days to his annual, regional ACDA* conference. The house always seems quiet and dull with just me and the hounds at home. Last night I distracted myself by mowing the lawn; tonight, it's food.
As is my tradition, I consoled myself by making egg salad, a treat I make only once or maybe twice a year. So, for my dinner tonight: a large portion of fresh egg salad, a tomato from our neighbor's garden, and a ripe, white peach. It is remarkably yummy and satisfying.
Apparently this is my favorite "summer dinner", and it is also something of a tradition to make note of it, since I did exactly that just on two years ago.
———-
* ACDA = American Choral Directors' Association
Not Missing the News
For most of my life, and certainly from about the time of graduate school onward, I have not had much time, patience for, or interest in broadcast television or radio news. I also never developed the habit of, nor set aside time for, reading a newspaper. Once upon a time I might have listened to "All Things Considered" but these days I begrudge the time and quickly get restless listening to news reporters talk, unless I happen to be driving, which I rarely am at that time of day anymore.
You wouldn't believe the number of people who felt sorry for me for being so out of touch (and probably un-American, to boot).
But I developed a theory: if something really important happened, something truly significant–like the Soviets had launched a nuclear attack (yes, there still was a Soviet Union in those days and they were still our dreaded nuclear cold-war enemies)–then someone would probably run down the hall shouting the news.
And you know what? That's pretty much turned out to be true. Especially for big events, like terrorists destroying the World-Trade Towers and killing thousands of people, folks did run down the halls shouting the news. It was unavoidable and I was in touch!
These days my window of contact with the outside world (which I wouldn't want to go so far as to label "reality") comes largely through the blogs I read. They're listed somewhere on this page. They serve as my news filter. Yes, there is undoubtedly some ideological filtering going on, but then I really don't need to follow a whole load of dumb-shit conservative crap for myself when there are other people to tell me about anything that stands out or seems unusually dangerous to secular democracy as we know and love it.
I'm sure that many well-meaning people would still consider me out of touch, but I do have a reputation as an absent-minded scientist to maintain and besides, I usually have heard about the "important" news stories well before my broadcast-news, newspaper-reading friends. "Have you heard..?", "Did you read…?" they ask. "Oh, I knew about that two, three days ago," I report. They typically exhibit amazed disbelief: after all, I don't read newspapers or listen to real news.
But–gosh!–there are times when I almost miss really important things. Why, I hadn't even heard that Obamas's plan for "socialized" health-care would require euthanasia of old people–according to certain wack-O Republicans. How could I have missed that!
Where does all the dreck come from? The easy theory is that the number of available channels and outlets for "news" have grown so much in recent decades that there simply isn't enough newsworthy news to fill the time and space on those channels, and they must be filled with something. That's not so hard to understand.
What is difficult to understand is why so many otherwise sensible people pay any attention to the dreck, let alone get really worked up over it as though it were actually important.