Brave Humans

After my recent few posts on more esoteric topics, I thought I would wade back into the political arena.

I came across a video of Rep. Joe Knollenberg’s (R-MI) and his staffers out on a bit of campaigning.

You can view that video here.

Given that the video doesn’t paint a pretty picture of Knollenberg, and the fact that Knollenberg is a Republican, the easiest response would be along the lines of “Oooh! Republicans behaving badly!” If we step back a bit though, even the most staunch liberal would have to admit that a Democrat could just as easily be guilty of such behavior. I make this point because I don’t want this post to be viewed as a partisan attack.

Watching this video, two things struck me as interesting. The first is early in the clip, where the congressman waves off the idea of supporting SCHIP, saying simply “oh, that’s a Democrat plan.” In other words, the plan was not initiated by his particular party, and so it is not worth dignifying with serious consideration. The second was a comment made by the staffer toward the end of the clip, in which he states that he is answering the questioner, because the congressman “won’t dignify you with a response.”

In both of these cases, considering someone’s differing views is seen as simply not worth it. The opposing view is simply too undignified to merit a serious response. As mere citizens, we just aren’t worth the time.

Which got me thinking: How far down the food chain would you have to go before your representatives considered you worth any time? What if you wrote a short, handwritten letter to your representatives regarding an issue important to you and asked for a personal, handwritten response? Do you think President Bush would write you back? How about your senators? Your congressman? Would you have to move down to the state or local level before getting a response?

It seems like an interesting experiment to try.

Be Brave. Be Human. Be Heard.
Brian

This week Ann Coulter stirred the political pot yet again. On the CNBC show “Big Idea”, Coulter was asked for her views on the perfect American society. At first she spouted off the idea that it would be a Republican society, shifted so far to the right that Joe Libermann would be viewed as a liberal Democrat. Host Danny Deutch didn’t let her off the hook that easily, and pressed her for specifics. In response, Coulter stated that an ideal American nation would have to be populated solely by Christians. Even Jews should convert to Christianity, because in this way they could be “perfected.” You can see a clip of this discussion here.

Needless to say, this did not go over well with Deutch, and Coulter has taken a great deal of heat over her comments. However Miss Coulter’s claim is exactly the view of many religious faiths all over the world. Through Islam the Abrahamic faith is perfected. Through the Book of Mormon, the message of Jesus is perfected. Even among Christian denominations there is contention for the title of perfect faith. The Catholic Church, for example, recognizes that Christianity comes in many flavors but Christianity is perfected through the authority of the Church.

As a religious argument, the idea of the perfection of your faith is simply a less harsh version of heaven and hell. Rather than saying your faith is the only path to heaven, the claim is that your faith is a better path to heaven, or perhaps a path to a better heaven. We may all receive mansions in heaven, but some of us will be given more square footage, or perhaps a better view of the beach.

Of course one does not need religious faith to hold such a view. The claim of religious perfection is just one example of the more general view that your demographic is inherently better than others. Atheists are better than believers because their minds are unchained by delusional thinking. The wealthy are better than the unwashed masses. A college education makes you better than the ignorant commoners. The nobility of my ethnic heritage is more perfect than yours. My political party can do no wrong, and your political party can do no right.

All the world’s queer but me and thee. And even thee is a bit queer.

What we value about ourselves, be it our religious faith, our education, or our political views, is a large part of how we define ourselves as individuals. We value the things that make us better people. It is only a small step to believe that our values are what it takes to be a better person. Those who do not share our values are less worthy. They are inherently imperfect. Perhaps there is some truth to this. I suspect most of us would argue that a world without slavery, starvation and war would be a better world than the present state of our planet. But how far can we travel along the path of common values before we begin to part company?

It is easy to criticize Ann Coulter for her outrageous statements and lack of tact, but what if we instead take her view and compare it with our own? How often is the concept of our inherent perfection reinforced? When we listen to political commentary, how often is the debate over nothing more than which worldview is superior. How often do political candidates simply claim their (our) political views are more perfect than their opponents? Can you find examples where the claim of perfection is not used in a political debate?

If we are to be Brave Humans, then we need to move beyond the idea that our way is the only way. Beyond the idea of our own superiority. But to do that, we first have to listen to ourselves and to our opponents. In our modern political debates, what are you hearing? What are you saying?

Be Brave. Be Human. Listen.
Brian

How do we know what is true and what is not? How do we weigh the validity of another’s opinion, or even the validity of our own?

Some time ago, Julia made a post on the comfort of knowing the truth. This resulted in a comment discussion on the nature of truth, where most of the comments confused truth with fact. So I thought I would return to this discussion.

Broadly speaking, there are three general types of truth.

The first is logical truth, which encompasses logical and philosophical reasoning, as well as mathematical formalism. Logical truths are based on deductive reasoning. Starting with a series of basic concepts or axioms, theorems or consequences can be logically deduced. If the axioms are true, then the resulting theorems are also true. The immense power of logical truth stems from the fact that deductive reasoning is a central aspect of human thought. Regardless of our cultural background, humans logically deduce in the same way. This is why, regardless of its cultural origin, the results of mathematics are always the same. Despite their vast cultural differences, the ancient Chinese and the ancient Greeks both deduced that the value of pi was 3.14…

Despite its power, there are two major weaknesses to logical truth. For one, logical truths are only as true as your axioms. Your axioms are simply assumed to be true, without any proof. For this reason logical truths are always conditional rather than absolute. Another weakness is that logical reasoning cannot answer every question. As the mathematician Kurt Godel demonstrated, any sufficiently complex logical structure will contain results which cannot be proved or disproved. There will always be logical unknowns.

The second type of truth is scientific truth, which forms the basis of modern science. The basis of scientific truth is not a set of axioms, but a set of facts. The fundamental tenet of science is that it is based in reality, at least in the kind of reality that can be tested. There are some (usually critics of evolution or global warming) who would argue that scientific truth can only encompass repeatable outcomes, but in fact scientific truth is derived from a confluence of evidence. Evidence does not need to be repeatable, but multiple pieces of evidence must point to the same theory. Scientific truths are logical truths consistent with the evidence.

The power of scientific truth can be seen all around you. We depend upon science for our very survival, and without it our modern society would collapse. The pursuit of scientific truth has reduced and in some cases eliminated the plagues of disease and suffering which have haunted humanity. It has provided humanity with a deeper understanding of our universe and our place within it. It has also given us powerful tools which we have used to do both great good and great evil.

The central weakness of scientific truth is that it too is conditional. The most elegant scientific theory can be torn asunder by a single verified experiment or piece of evidence. Throughout history, new evidence has destroyed theory after theory. Evidence destroyed the truth that the Earth was the center of the universe. It destroyed the truth that illness was caused by “bad air”. It destroyed the truth that Earth is only a few thousand years old. In many ways this is part of the power of science, because it prevents scientific truth from being dogmatic. New evidence forces us to let go of old truths in exchange for deeper, more subtle truths. But this is no comfort for those who want truth to be absolute and unchanging.

The third type of truth is emotional truth, which forms the basis of religion and culture. Emotional truths are intuitive. They are not derived logically or scientifically, but rather stem from the fact that they simply feel right. The power of emotional truth stems from the fact that we are deeply emotional creatures. Our rational, reasoning minds can easily be overridden by emotion.

Emotional truths play a vital role in our lives. As social creatures we need to know when to trust others and when not to trust others. Our emotions are key to this. Emotional truths allow society and religion to bind us together into communities. Logical and scientific truths may be tenuous, but emotional truths you feel to your core. So deep is the power of emotion that for many people emotion is their only measure of truth. For them, all the logical or scientific evidence in the world can be trumped by a single statement: I don’t believe it.

Therein lies the central weakness of emotional truth. Deeply held emotional truths are not subject to criticism. They are absolute. The Bible is the word of God because you feel it to be true. Christians are bigots because you feel it to be true. Liberals hate America, Conservatives hate children, and God hates fags. It must be true because you feel it to your bones. How could it possibly be false?

Like everyone else, how I view the world is based on all of these truths. As I scientist, however, I find it difficult to comprehend how people cling to certain emotional truths in the face of logical and scientific ones. For me, scientific and logical truths override emotional truth. I simply can’t accept as true anything which is contradicted by evidence. I’m not wired that way.

How about you? Do you prefer emotional truths over scientific ones? Are there other truths you think I’ve omitted? Or do you think I’ve got things completely wrong?

Be Brave. Be Human. Discuss.
Brian

Recently I came across this photograph of a billboard:

To give you some context, it is an advertisement for Answers in Genesis, the fundamentalist Christian organization which promotes Biblical literalism, including the idea that the universe was created about 6000 years ago, and that the immense diversity of animals we now see on the planet traces their origins back to a passenger on the ark about 4000 years ago (including dinosaurs). They are also fierce opponents of evolution, equating it everything from atheism to Nazi fascism. You can see their views on creation in multimedia splendor at their Creation Museum near Cincinnati.

That being said, what can we draw from such an image? On one level, the message is clear: anyone who doesn’t believe in our Christian God is evil. They have no morals, and therefore will do evil things. It is classic fear propaganda. Images such as these have been used by governments in times of war, to encourage people to view the enemy as amoral animals. It is how governments justify killing the other side. It is also the type of imagery used by totalitarian regimes to justify genocide and murder within its own borders.

It’s possible that propaganda is the sign’s only purpose. The people at Answers in Genesis may not subscribe to such views, but they wish to encourage it in order to promote their world view. Of course the power of propaganda is not simply that it creates fear and hatred, but that it draws upon the fears and biases we already have. We all have fears and biases, and the right image or idea can strengthen and reinforce them.

What then, is the above image trying to feed? If you read through the Answers in Genesis site, it is pretty clear: only the Christian God prevents our bad behavior. The only thing preventing us from murdering our neighbors is the fear that God is watching us and will be angry. The fear of eternal Hell is the only thing keeping us in line. If you subscribe to this idea, then it is no wonder that atheists, scientists, and liberals terrify you. Anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the idea of an afterlife full of pain has no stick to keep them in line, so why should you trust them?

Personally, I find this idea quite bizarre. My inhibition to killing people doesn’t stem from any fear of God, or even of legal retribution. I don’t live in fear of angering a supernatural being. But perhaps I’m just an odd one.

What do you think? Do humans need God to keep them in line? Do moral guidelines come from a divine source, or are they part of who we are as a species on this little planet we call home?

Image source: mistermaxal’s photostream.

I noted with interest that , after all the bad feeling and conflict between the Islamic world and the west, here is a story that shows mainstream America has something in common with Islamic thought. At Yahoo News, I read about how Turkey made the teaching of creationism mandatory in their schools back in 1985. Since then, they have made great progress and are now starting to spread their message outside of Turkey!
Now they are sending their glossy, high-production value 768-page “Atlas of Creation” - it weighs more than 13 pounds!- to several European countries and the US.

“Every Islamic bookshop I know of stocks Harun Yahya’s material. It is so glossily produced. It is very attractive and very colorful and outclasses everything else,” says Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim British Council, speaking by phone from London.

“It is having an effect. Even among Muslim medical students there are a number now who are speaking out against Darwin,” the story tells us. And that may not be all bad–after all, the Arabs were known to have better medical practices than the Europeans for a long time. So joining in the Islamic fundamentalist worldview might not be without it’s bright side!

And, as an added bonus, there may be some additional social gains to listening to our fundamentalist brethren:The “author” for the book was recently quoted as saying “Hitler, Mao, and Lenin were Darwinists. At the root of wild capitalism is also Darwinism. I think if we no longer believe in Darwinism, people will no longer be conditioned to believe in those things. “He continues by saying “Folks, there is no such thing as what you call evolution. If there was, it would be in the Holy Bible or the Koran…What I’m saying is true. They cannot disprove it.” This sounds like a lot of what is heard here in America, and isn’t it good to know that we have some commonalities upon which to build a new set of understandings? And, we seem to be coming closer together!

In a recent Science magazine survey Turkey had the second-lowest acceptance rate of the theory of evolution. But don’t worry-the United States had the lowest.

Yes, the foregoing has been a bit tongue-in-cheek.

At this point, it might be good to note that the “author” of the Atlas, who apparently is not the author at all, but rather is the front man for a politically motivated writing group, is 51-year-old former interior-design student named Adnan Oktar. He uses the pen-name Harun Yahya.

In opposition to him, curiously enough, are some …(wait for it………wait for it……..) scientists!

While giving creationism a scientific veneer, “Scientifically speaking, the whole Harun Yahya corpus is a bunch of nonsense, but it is unfortunately very popular,” says Taner Edis, a Turkish physicist who teaches at Truman State University in Missouri.

Professor Edis says the success of the Harun Yahya books, at least in the Islamic world, can be attributed to a need for harmonizing modern life with traditional Islamic beliefs.

“Something has to reconcile these two things and it becomes very attractive when someone comes out with a well-packaged message, that they can have both – be fully modern and at the same have science … affirm most of their very deeply held religious and ethical perceptions,” says Edis, whose “An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam” was published by Prometheus Books this spring.

“That’s a pretty attractive package and that’s mostly what the Harun Yahya material provides,” he says.

I like what Professor Edis says- it is the desire to reconcile two disparate world views that makes people try to make faith and science be one. They aren’t, of course, but I’ve been human enough to want things to be a certain way because it would be more comforting, or it would just make things easier, and for once, just once, couldn’t things be easy? I can get that. Maybe you can too?

For a little while. Then I have to do the hard work of facing the truth, and living in the world that is here and now. Not when the Koran was written. Not when the books of the Bible were chosen, edited, and presented to the faithful.Those books are beautiful, they contain profound truths, and they are available in handsome, glossy, well-bound editions that you can be proud to own. But they are not the whole truth. They are not enough to be taken literally when faced with the truth of today.

I found it good to know that there are also people in the Islamic world who are working to recognize that scientific knowledge and spiritual faith can both exist, but that they are not the same territory.

“The general state of science education is very bad in the sense that evolution and creationism are taught together, and they can’t be taught together. If they are, no scientific thinking can be established in these students,” says Aykut Kence, a professor of biology at Ankara’s Middle East Technical University.

“We are going to fall behind the modern countries in terms of development, economy, culture. Everything.”

Attractive packaging. Temptation. It’s the old apple trick again. This garden we’re in may not seem so good, most days. But I’m guessing that it beats the fundamentalist wasteland into which we would be cast out.

Be brave, and be the best of your humanity.
Nick

In this month of Harry Potter (the latest movie and the last book both debut in July), a short article in Time caught my eye. In it, the Harry Potter series is described as “radical” (compared to Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia) because there is no religion mentioned: “If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God.”

The tone of the piece is not condemning; it’s more analytical. Still, I’m reminded of the pressure groups that sought to ban the Harry Potter series because it advocates witchcraft. To those who criticize Harry Potter as godless, I just want to remind them: it’s a work of fiction. It’s not real. It’s not our world. It’s not trying to be.

In our house we’re big Harry Potter fans. We also go to church weekly, and there have been no dilemmas trying to reconcile the two. That’s because Harry Potter is fun; it’s entertainment. I’ve never focused on the absence of God in the books because there’s so much going on in the wizarding world already. (Honestly, when I first read the Chronicles of Narnia, I was oblivious to the Christian symbolism within it….I just thought it was a good adventure saga.)

Harry Potter is not about the magic…it’s about the people. The focus is on the kids… and they happen to be witches and wizards. That makes it exciting and different, but it’s their relationships that are pivotal to unfolding the story and holding our attention.

In my view, folks who denounce the absence of God in Harry Potter worry too much about its influence. We’re quite a Potter-saturated household; it’s been the basis for a birthday party theme, homemade games, role-play, and the infamous Harry Potter Barbie creative play (picture Ken and friends as the Weasley boys with painted red hair…) It ends there, however. It’s great for the imagination, because it’s clearly not our world. We’re muggles in a muggle world, forever and always.

Be brave. Be a reader.
Susan

Reading informs our writing. In searching around, I found this site, and this article in particular, worthwhile.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/summers-of-love

Read, and enjoy. I loved the image of “parachuting in.”

Disclosure:This site is unabashedly progressive. For those of a bent to follow political discussion, I have also found their concept of “frames”interesting. You’ll find that on the homepage.

Enjoy-
Nick

Another partisan battle. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees sent subpoenas to the White House, asking for documents related to the U. S. attorney firings last year. Like many presidents before him, Bush is citing “executive privilege.”

This is not going to be a rant about that, however. This is a post to share some information I’ve recently come across that concerns “executive privilege.” My point here is to summarize the article; find it on the NPR website if you’re interested in a more in-depth look. I learned quite a few things, most importantly:

1. It’s not in the U. S. Constitution. It’s not explicit there, although some say it’s implied under “separation of powers.” But just because you say it, that doesn’t mean you’re gonna get it, which leads me to the next interesting point:
2. It all started with George Washington, who, in 1792, didn’t want to hand over information about a “disastrous expedition against American Indian tribes.” He lost the battle against Congress, too.
3. Sometimes a president is successful. Eisenhower, who coined the phrase, didn’t want individuals from his administration appearing before an Army hearing concerning preferential treatment allegedly sought by Senator McCarthy for a former aide. Eisenhower prevailed. On the other hand, Nixon and Clinton famously did not.
4. Despite partisan declarations throughout history, the STATED purpose of “executive privilege” is for protection of sources: presidents want “candid advice from their aides — and aides simply won’t be willing to give such advice if they know they might be called to testify, under oath, before a congressional committee or in some other forum.” I’m pretty sure that in some cases there are other reasons involved, but this is how it’s presented, anyway.

So in the midst of the Washington, D. C. skirmish, I found this interesting. Feel free to discuss the latest skirmish, your views on executive privilege, or the Nixon and Clinton hearings. (Just kidding about that last phrase, please.)

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

So, tonight I sit here wondering if there is any true justice, and any way to find middle ground on this one. “Scooter” Libby, an inner member of the Bush team, lies to a Grand Jury. He is prosecuted by a Bush appointee, found guilty by a jury, sentenced by a Bush appointee, and the implementation of his conviction is upheld by an Appeals Court in a 3-0 decision; two of those three judges are also Bush appointees. Yet the President says that the sentence, given in accordance with federal sentencing guidelines, is “excessive.” So Bush commutes the sentence and gives his friend a “Get Out Of Jail” card. In the meantime, the commutation keeps the appeal alive and therefore allows Bush and Cheney to “not comment on a current case.”

Never mind that Bush said “If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”

Never mind that not just Ms. Plame’s career, but the lives of other operatives have been put in play as foreign intelligence services walk back over her tracks to see with whom she spoke and where she went. Certainly Bush 41 thought this was a problem when he said:

“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”

Never mind that this stems from an apparent attack on a career diplomat who asked for accountability in the build-up to war in Iraq by demanding that the American people be told the truth, rather than being scared into support of a decision to commit US troops and resources in a second war.

I actually understand trying to cover up misbehavior.
I understand that someone might try obfuscation and lies to protect themselves.
I understand trying to shield others by “taking one for the team.”

But where is the supposed moral leadership, the honesty and integrity, the responsibility for one’s actions?

Isn’t this just more quid pro quo? And isn’t the action of revealing a covert agent’s name still a felony and treasonous?

So what are we saying here about the accountability of those in power? The message seems to be that there is no “Truth” if you are contradicting this administration, and no “Wrong” if you are supporting them.

What is bravery now?

Nick

I’ll start out by stating my bias: I’m not a fan of on-line university education. Although I’ve never taken a course on-line, I’ve written and taught on-line graduate courses. I’ll admit that as a doctoral student I did it for the experience (something to put on my c. v.) and for the money. I taught classroom courses as well; those I enjoyed.

That said, I also believe that on-line education is here to stay and will grow and develop. I know arguments for it, such as including convenience for working students, availability for students geographically precluded from higher education, more “thinking time”, and lower overhead for the institution. I also know arguments against it: reduced personal interaction, greater work load for instructors, inconsistent expectations among courses, and perhaps most importantly…who’s doing the work?

With the current set-up of many on-line courses, there’s no way to know who’s completing the assignments…they’re posted, and that’s that. I hope that the person who’s doing the work is the same as the person who’s registered, but with an entirely scripted asynchronous course, I really have no idea. As the technology improves, I’m sure a lot of bugs will be worked out, but up to now there’s been a tremendous number of on-line courses taught with little security.

The impetus for this rant today is an article I recently read on CNN.com about web cams being used to deter cheating on exams for on-line courses. Essentially, it works like this:

“When the exam begins, the device records audio and video. Software detects significant noises and motions and flags them in the recording. An instructor can go back and watch only the portions flagged by the software to see if anything untoward is going on — a student making a phone call, leaving the room — and if there is a sudden surge in performance afterward.”

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out during testing; it’s being introduced this fall at Troy University in Alabama. How will students and instructors react? Will it make a difference? Will students figure out a way around it?

Perhaps in the future, on-line courses will be designed to be so secure and rigorous that I will become a fan. I’m not a Luddite; I love my little Powerbook and 24/7 access to the web. Almost daily I’m impressed with what I can find there…it’s a great tool. Heck, on-line learning was even an essential part of the research for my dissertation.

Still… at the university where I taught, a student could earn a master’s degree in education totally on-line; there would have to be no face-to-face interaction for the entire program. In education, where teachers are required to face people everyday? In my state, a master’s degree is required for teachers, and that’s where students study pedagogy, not in an undergrad program (like when I got my degree, back in the Stone Age.) Therefore, one can become a teacher without having to personally interact with people until they participate in pre-service teaching. That doesn’t sit well with me.

Wow, that’s a lot of complaints. Let me focus here: I guess my overall objection is that on-line education has been embraced too rapidly and used too extensively before it is technologically ready to handle issues concerning security, consistency, and interpersonal relations. There. I’ve said my piece. Now back to searching for ice cream recipes on the web…

Be brave. Be human.
Susan