What on Earth--?? We're Being Scammed!

For some reason the New York Times has opened up its pages to Proselytizing, so long s you cram your (long!) article chock full of three or four Namedrops per paragraph. (The namedropping is so that your approach gives off the aura of Academia, rather than self-defining Hucksterism.)

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/kung-fu-for-philosophers/

This kung fu approach shares a lot of insights with the Aristotelian virtue ethics, which focuses on the cultivation of the agent instead of on the formulation of rules of conduct. Yet unlike Aristotelian ethics, the kung fu approach to ethics does not rely on any metaphysics for justification. One does not have to believe in a pre-determined telos for humans in order to appreciate the excellence that kung fu brings. This approach does lead to recognition of the important guiding function of metaphysical outlooks though. For instance a person who follows the Aristotelian metaphysics will clearly place more effort in cultivating her intelligence, whereas a person who follows the Confucian relational metaphysics will pay more attention to learning rituals that would harmonize interpersonal relations. This approach opens up the possibility of allowing multiple competing visions of excellence, including the metaphysics or religious beliefs by which they are understood and guided, and justification of these beliefs is then left to the concrete human experiences.

The problem with this isn't the subject matter (which is, in fact, historically and culturally interesting) but that this is an endorsement, not an overview. "Multiple competing visions of excellence"? Is that like the "many other ways of knowing"? Yes-- yes it is.

This isn't Philosophy at all, but Anthropology at its very worst (i.e., what it has become): didactic advocacy of a system of belief, rather than the study of societies and their ways.

And as a closer, a call to escape those confining bounds of Rationality:

If philosophy is “a way of life,” as Pierre Hadot puts it, the kung fu approach suggests that we take philosophy as the pursuit of the art of living well, and not just as a narrowly defined rational way of life.

Isn't leaving this until the last sentence burying the lede so far that Professor Ni could be legitimately accused of purposely hiding it? Instead of "Kung Fu for Philosophers", shouldn't this be more accurately entitled: "A Laboredly Erudite Call for Irrationality (with Footnotes)"?

 

It Is Very Easy to Find Trashy Photos Using the Keywords: Arizona State University

Paul Raeburn over at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker has a somewhat more temperate-- but still scathing-- response to the awful Daniel Sarewitz piece Slate ran yesterday, and these Heralded Pages frothed on a bit about:

http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2010/12/08/slate-democratic-scientists-accused-of-pushing-dem-agenda/

 

Sarewitz reasons by insinuation, not with evidence or data. If he thinks it’s causation, he should make his case–and cite some evidence to support it. He doesn’t bother. He tries to taint scientists merely by asking a loaded question. Sarewitz might also ask the males among them when they stopped beating their wives.

Can Sarewitz show that scientists’ political beliefs affect their findings, which is what he is alleging? No. Again, he insinuates, but does not even try to back up the claim. Instead, he writes, “…Could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political—and that science is just carried along for the ride?” Well, it could be, I suppose. But is it? Sarewitz doesn’t bother to say.

Another instance: Sarewitz says “survey data show that the scientific community enjoys the trust of 90 percent of Americans—more than for any other institution, including the Supreme Court and the military. Yet this exceptional status could well be forfeit in the escalating fervor of national politics.” Could it be? I suppose so. But where’s the evidence? Mr. Sarewitz? Hello? Hello?

 

 

Upon due, prayerful, consideration, the Maybe attached to the end of the title of the Sarewitz rant run yesterday was unnecessarily hyperbolic: While extremely crappy, Sarewitz doesn't even come close to Saletan on Race, or Gregg Easterbrook on... anything.

 

When Brushing Your Teeth is a Threat to Life and Limb

Here's a really nice bit of writing from Elizabeth Dwoskin of the Village Voice, here writing for the New York Times.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/the-worst-bathroom-in-new-york/

That bathroom was the worst I had ever seen in New York. It looked like a hurricane had hit it (I’m from Florida; I’ve seen a water-logged bathroom after a hurricane, and Lorillard was just as bad). And after I saw it, I was really shaken. My mind was racing: I started to fantasize about taking Mayor Bloomberg to visit that bathroom, and forcing him to explain to me how this could have happened. It felt unacceptable — fundamentally, jarringly so.

A few days later, I pulled the building’s violation report. The landlord was supposed to have certified that the bathroom was fixed two days before, but hadn’t bothered. (It would take four more months, until April of this year — April! — for the city to complete the repairs.) I also took a look at its 311 records. Two hundred and sixty two calls had been made by Lorillard residents that year. Daniel, the new father, did in fact register 12 311 complaints on a single day in May; 11 on a single day in June. Justin and his mother, on the other hand, had made only one 311 call — back in January, to report the broken sink pipes and the collapsing ceiling in the bathroom.

Indeed, when I would ask a tenant if they called 311, I would hear either a Daniel response — “I called 311 until I was blue in the face” — or a response that mirrors the behavior of Justin’s family — “I don’t call 311 anymore. Because I gave up.” In a certain way, both responses are saying the same thing. They are expressions of the demoralization and resignation that people carry with them. In the social universe I inhabit, there’s such a strong belief that you can change things, you can make things happen. But in the Bronx, behind too many of the doors I knocked on, people’s faces are bereft of that sense.

Dwoskin mixes examples of criminal malfeasance and personal woe with 311 records. It's an arresting mixture, and well worth reading in its entirety.

Not to crack overly wise, but Mr Ford had some wisdom to offer on this very topic:

The Stupidest Column in Slate Ever? Maybe.

(Photo: Why is it ASU isn't known for its Pedagogy?)

Daniel Sarewitz co-directs the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University. He also writes a monthly column on science and technology policy for Nature. He's written himself a little article for Slate. Here's a paragraph from it to sniff at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/

Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.

[...]

During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science. In the process, they seem to have convinced themselves that they are the keepers of the Enlightenment spirit, and that those who disagree with them on issues like climate change are fundamentally irrational. Meanwhile, many Republicans have come to believe that mainstream science is corrupted by ideology and amounts to no more than politics by another name. Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs. The climate debacle is only the most conspicuous example of these debilitating tendencies, which play out in issues as diverse as nuclear waste disposal, protection of endangered species, and regulation of pharmaceuticals.

[...]

You'll have to follow the link and read the whole (not very long) article, and then think to yourself, "Hmmm. What word or idea seems conspicuously absent from this presentation?"

Have you thought of it yet?

Try hitting Ctrl+F in your browser window and typing e - v - o ... What's that? Phrase not found? No word starting with the letters e - v - o on the entire page? How could that be? An article about how Republicans are estranged from Science fails to mention evolution at all? Why, an article that fails to understand the basic reality of the connection between Republicans and the Religious Right seems like it must have been written by someone with no grasp on Reality at all.

And wait a minute... Ctrl+F ... r - e - l ... the word religion isn't mentioned in the article, either?

It doesn't seem plausible that the dearth of Republican scientists has the same causes as the under-representation of women or minorities in science. I doubt that teachers are telling young Republicans that math is too hard for them, as they sometimes do with girls; or that socioeconomic factors are making it difficult for Republican students to succeed in science, as is the case for some ethnic minority groups.

No, there aren't teachers telling young Republicans not to trust science and scientists, you idiot. There are pastors, reverends, priests, and their fundamentalist religious friends and family telling them that! The divide between Republicans and Democrats is one of Religious Literalism, and it's flabbergasting that this article pretends that this isn't the central issue.

But, totally ignoring the actual issues involved, and the actual causal dynamics at issue, let's Worry, shall we?

For example, survey data show that the scientific community enjoys the trust of 90 percent of Americans—more than for any other institution, including the Supreme Court and the military. Yet this exceptional status could well be forfeit in the escalating fervor of national politics, given that most scientists are on one side of the partisan divide. If that public confidence is lost, it would be a huge and perhaps unrecoverable loss for a democratic society.

Hmm, 90% respect. No data suggesting that's falling. Let's just speculate an "If," though, to create a problem.

What solutions for this "problem" would a person who fails to mention Evolution as a disconnect between Science and Politics suggest, do you suppose?

How would a more politically diverse scientific community improve this situation? First, it could foster greater confidence among Republican politicians about the legitimacy of mainstream science. Second, it would cultivate more informed, creative, and challenging debates about the policy implications of scientific knowledge. This could help keep difficult problems like climate change from getting prematurely straitjacketed by ideology. A more politically diverse scientific community would, overall, support a healthier relationship between science and politics.

Oh, accomodationism. If Scientists could only listen, and be willing to compromise, they'd surely convince politicians from the Religious Right that there were innumerable facts supporting Evolution, and none at all supporting Creationism. All would be well! That this hasn't happened in the past 150 years is no reason to keep hoping and trying. Maybe they'll come around next year.

And if only there were more Religious Right scientists, then there would, ipso facto, be a healthier relationship between Religious Right Scientists and Religious Right Politicians. They'd even be able to Bond at the same Church Picnics.

In lieu of any real effort to understand and grapple with the politics of science, we can expect calls for more "science literacy" as public confidence begins to wane.

Yes, from your own stipulated 90%, and with no suggestion of any actual change, "begins to" is surely the right way to phrase that.

But the issue here is legitimacy, not literacy. A democratic society needs Republican scientists.

According, then, to Mr Sarewitz: to be Legitimate, and keep the public from worrying about Ideology infecting science policy, science must be practiced by ideologues-- Ideologues from both parties, of course (to be fair).

It's like David Broder had a son.

A Mockery of Justice

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11947111

A woman who slashed actor Leonardo DiCaprio's face with a broken bottle at a Hollywood party in 2005 has been sentenced to two years in prison.

This woman's lawyers should be immediately disbarred for failing to mount an adequate defense: DiCaprio's attempt to play Rimbaud in Total Eclipse is surely worth a public flaying, never mind a mere seventeen stitches.

While the subject is broached, anyone with spare time to invest in a worthless project would likely find a Cash Prize awaiting them should they mix this (misguided, overwrought) song about Rimbaud:

with the (entirely misguided, hysterically overwrought) visuals from that filmed hambone:

How a Love of Science Fiction Inevitably Leads to Defending Torture

Were you aware that Washington Post op-ed columnist Marc Thiessen is a vile human being? Likely you were, since he wrote a whole book (filled with easily-disproved falsehoods) defending the Bush Administration's use of torture. And did you also know that he was a talentless, awful writer, bereft of any thought beyond his immediate propaganda goal? Of course you were, as the opening sentence of this paragraph informs you that he appears as a columnist on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post.

But did you fully realize that his disgusting views and serial misinformation were not the result of, say, Krauthammer or Cheney-esque evil calculation and deception, but as a result of his being less intelligent than the albino manatee he resembles?

Observe:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/07/pundit-calls-for-dev.html

...[I]f you read one thing, read Marc Thiessen's fresh item at the Washington Post. It's not the fact that he's vigorously opposed to Wikileaks that's interesting, but rather his understanding of the technology at the heart of this entire saga:

Some say attacking WikiLeaks would be fruitless. Really? In the past year, the Iranian nuclear system has been crippled by a computer worm called "Stuxnet," which has attacked Iran's industrial systems and the personal computers of Iranian nuclear scientists. To this day, no one has traced the origin of the worm. Imagine the impact on WikiLeaks's ability to distribute additional classified information if its systems were suddenly and mysteriously infected by a worm that would fry the computer of anyone who downloaded the documents. WikiLeaks would probably have very few future visitors to its Web site.

Wikipedia: Thiessen "spent six years (1995–2001) on Capitol Hill as spokesman and senior policy advisor to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC).^[3] He joined the Bush administration as Chief Speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld in 2001, then moved to Bush's speechwriting team in 2004.^[3]"

Isn't it incredible that in all of that time working in government Marc Thiessen learned everything he knows about computers, and computer security, from watching bad movies aimed at teenage audiences? The Washington Post's email system must be operating on some sort of military-grade encryption system, for poor Marc to even feel safe opening his Daily Candy updates-- what if his computer got fried??

Does it bring you comfort to know that simpleminded, obviously stupid policies are defended by simpleminded, obviously stupid people? Wouldn't a conspiracy somehow be more life-affirming?

Let's Spend a Few Days Praising New Media and Press Freedom, by Philip J. Crowley

Please enjoy a Hearty Laugh with Mr Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. State Department... Previously unrecognized, Mr Crowley's extraordinarily dry, acerbic satire is remarkable for its icy, razored reserve.

It's when you reach the part about New Media where your eyes start to water; when you get to the part about Government Censorship, and Enduring Commitment it's almost too much to take

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 - May 3 in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press.

The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21^st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

As much as it runs over the joke with a truck tire, here's the Jim Carrey version of the joke:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/paypal-wikileaks/

Milo Yannopoulos’ first question on stage to PayPal’s VP of Platform Osama Bedier was why PayPal blocked WikiLeaks payments and froze its account. The question was met with boos from the mostly European audience.

Bedier made it seem like PayPal had complied with governmental request, “We have an acceptable use policy and their job is making sure that our customers are protected, that we comply with regulations around the world, and that we protect our brand.”

Bedier also said that the State Department deemed WikiLeaks illegal on November 27th, a statement that was not followed up on by Yiannopoulos. It is still unclear what exact US laws WikiLeaks is breaking.