Dear Santa, thank you for the dolls and pencils and the fish. It's Easter now, so I hope I didn't wake you but... honest, it is an emergency. There's a crack in my wall. Aunt Sharon says it's just an ordinary crack, but I know its not cause at night there's voices so... please please can you send someone to fix it? Or a policeman, or...
Back in a moment.
Thank you Santa.
Saturday, April 26
The Historical Stupid Files
Much nonsense has been written on the subject of human consciousness, from both those whom we would expect to know better, such as Roger Penrose in
The Emperor's New Mind* and those whom we wouldn't, such as John Searle in his
Chinese Room piffle.**
But one of the stars in this particular field of nonscience has to be Julian Jaynes, author of
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
Jaynes claims that until very recently - as late as the 10th century BC - the human mind was not unified as we find it today, but bicameral, the left hemisphere disconnected from the right. Humans of the day were effectively schizophrenic, not in the soap-opera sense of having multiple personalities, but in the genuine clinical sense of paranoia and hearing voices.
Jaynes' evidence for this is literary. He argues that older works such as the
Iliad display no sign of such modern mental faculties as introspection, where more recent works, such as the
Odyssey, do show this.
Now, perhaps it happened that in both translations of the
Iliad that I have to hand*** the obvious implications of introspection were the result of careless editing. Jaynes is a psychologist, not a historian or linguist, but perhaps he reads fluent Ionic Greek. Never mind that.
Never mind that even if these two poems were not the work of the same man (which is historically uncertain), they were likely created only about a century apart, not a very long time for such a significant evolution of human mentality. Never mind that people not only write poems and stories like this today, but
act like this today, and yet are often not diagnosably schizophrenic. Never mind either that this is not at all the behaviour we see in unfortunate individuals who do suffer from a bicameral mind or
split brain.
Never mind that.
Instead, let's go to
the oldest one in the book, the
Epic of Gilgamesh.
In the story, Gilgamesh rejects the advances of the goddess Ishtar
because he has read the myths and knows that this never ends well for the hero.
Yes folks, it's a trope subversion, and one that predates the
Iliad by hundreds of years, if not a thousand and more. This particular passage is only found in the Akkadian version of the Epic; the much older Babylonian version is incomplete and doesn't appear to refer to this part of the tale. Nevertheless, the entire tale of Gilgamesh is deeply and incontrovertibly introspective, rendering Jaynes' thesis incoherent on a literary basis as well.
And the whole topic arose only because I was browsing the
TV Tropes wiki for a subject that I have now entirely forgotten.
* Penrose argues three points: First, that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, which is very likely true; that human-like consciousness could not arise from a Universal Turing Machine, which is unsupported by logic or evidence; and that human consciousness is directly dependent on quantum events, which is impossible.** Searle's argument goes like this: Suppose we have a man locked in a room with a library full of books. He receives via a slot in the wall, pieces of paper covered with illegible symbols. Following instructions in the books, he writes a new set of symbols on another piece of paper and feeds that back out through the slot.Unbeknownst to the man in the box, the symbols are Chinese; the pieces of paper he receives are questions, and the pieces of paper he returns are answers. He neither speaks nor reads a word of Chinese, and yet via the Room he is conducting fluent conversations.Searle argues that since the man does not understand Chinese, artificial intelligence is impossible.If you experienced a Huh? moment there, you are not alone. The argument rests on a multitude of fallacies, including - depending on where how you slice it - self-contradiction, circularity, assuming the consequent, the fallacy of composition, and a good old-fashioned helping of non-sequitur.To put it most simply, though the man doesn't understand Chinese - because Searle stipulated that - the room does - because Searle stipulated that. There are more subtle arguments to Searle's incorrectness, but it's not necessary to go into those here, because Searle's response is always the same, to wit, "Artificial intelligence is impossible because I said so."*** E. V. Rieu's prose version and Richmond Lattimore's verse translation.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
05:24 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 716 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Whoa.
The man doesn't understand Chinese... but the ROOM does.I've heard the Chinese room paradox a hundred times and never made that connection. You seriously just blew my mind.
Posted by: Mark at Sunday, April 27 2008 01:41 PM (QBM6A)
2
is this bait for me?
how delicious.
Posted by: matoko_chan at Sunday, April 27 2008 02:14 PM (bqE4v)
3
Nah, here I'm mostly beating up on Jaynes.
This comment on my earlier post was bait for you.
There are two problems with the idea of quantum consciousness. First is
that it is an unnecessary hypothesis; human consciousness displays no
signs of quantum behaviour. Second is that it's impossible.
Quantum consciousness is to neuroscience what homeopathy is to medicine.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, April 27 2008 03:21 PM (PiXy!)
4
I had the same reaction to the Chinese room when I first heard it: the
room understands Chinese. That was obvious to me, but maybe it was because I was already a computer programmer. The idea of distilling understanding to a physically instantiated algorithm just didn't seem all that surprising. I mean, that's exactly what you do with a computer program.
Posted by: Yahzi at Monday, April 28 2008 03:32 AM (yn9dj)
5
While Jaynes thesis has really no evidence going for it, its such a neat idea that it has shown up in fiction several times.
Posted by: Kayle at Monday, April 28 2008 05:24 PM (yG9oH)
6
Actually, when you stick *only* to the oldest available version of the Gilgamesh epic, the evidence for introspection resembling the form you see even in the Odyssey is pretty close to nil.
Have you actually bothered to *read* the damned book? *Something* clearly changed in humanity's cognitive architecture over the period he's interested in, and it's to Jaynes' credit that he made a pretty compelling attempt at sketching an explanation for several odd things that need explaining. It sounded wacky to me when I first heard about it, but having gone into the book skeptically I've found myself actually using his ideas as a jumping-off point into my own research right now (I'm in neurobiology w/ an interest in human brain evolution).
I can't say much right now without giving the game away, but I can say that while Jaynes (unsurprisingly) got the functional neuroanatomy wrong, he was onto something. Things haven't stood still since the late '70s, and surprisingly the main thrust of the book is actually *more* credible now than it was then. (Hint: begin
here.)
Posted by: Shoshin at Wednesday, April 30 2008 05:36 AM (5XE7d)
7
Shoshin, extrapolating all of humanity's mental capabilities from
one book is not really valid.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Wednesday, April 30 2008 06:02 AM (+rSRq)
8
Actually, when you stick *only* to the oldest available version of the
Gilgamesh epic, the evidence for introspection resembling the form you
see even in the Odyssey is pretty close to nil.
So it's introspective - the whole Epic is undeniably deeply introspective - but not in the right way? And you chalk this up to major evolutionary changes rather than literary ones, when humans had been around a hundred times longer than literature?
*Something* clearly changed in humanity's cognitive architecture over the period he's interested in
Clearly nothing. As I said, people write stories the same way today; people
act the same way today.
I'm aware of the evidence for the acceleration of human evolution. But we're not lizards on an island, and there is zero biological evidence to support Jaynes, and considerable evidence refuting him. As I also noted, we know how bicameral minds behave, and it's not at all as Jaynes suggests.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, April 30 2008 09:07 AM (PiXy!)
9
Then it's a good thing that's not what I'm doing, Steve. It's actually just one mental capability that happens to be a really good trick.
Andrew, I notice you didn't answer my question. I'll take that as a no. And I am in fact denying that the epic, in its oldest incarnation, is deeply introspective -- the only convincing bits that show this are from later Akkadian versions. And I am in fact denying that people think, write, and act in the same way today. (Well, almost all people -- there are actually some alive that are more or less the same, but then telling you who they are would be a spoiler.)
"Bicameral" refers to the functional hypothesis -- the idea that during the 12,000-4000 YBP period people took marching orders from hallucinations. This part, I think, has something to it, though its plausibility hinges a lot on Jaynes' underlying ideas about the evolution of language, which are actually pretty smart too. Callosotomized patients are actually not at the top of the list of reasons to believe Jaynes got the neuroanatomy wrong, which you'd know if you'd RTFB, because not only does he spend about five pages discussing them, but his actual anatomical hypothesis centers around the anterior commissure, not the corpus callosum. But it's still wrong, I think, for other reasons.
"Zero biological evidence", eh? So the dozens of genes expressed during brain development that have been shown to have undergone strong selection in the last 6K years -- those are what, nothing? We don't really know precisely what they do yet, but the evidence for cognitive change in humans over the last few thousand years is there in the DNA, and it's not controversial.
Posted by: Shoshin at Wednesday, April 30 2008 12:58 PM (5XE7d)
10
"And you chalk this up to major evolutionary changes rather than
literary ones, when humans had been around a hundred times longer than
literature?"
1. Not a major evolutionary change; there's no such thing. It's one small change (well, technically *two* small changes...) that had big consequences.
2. Not just literature, but what the literature tells us about the psychology of the authors. Jaynes actually tried to hedge by suggesting ways that this could have been a solely cultural thing and did some handwaving about plasticity (ironic that this is the one area where he showed insufficient boldness), but a story involving biological change driven by natural selection actually makes *more* sense than one that doesn't.
Posted by: Shoshin at Wednesday, April 30 2008 01:12 PM (5XE7d)
11
Andrew, I notice you didn't answer my question. I'll take that as a no.
Sorry, I was running late for work when I posted that. You are correct.
Does it matter? What you are arguing seems to coincide almost completely with my expectations. (Though I'm glad that he at least addressed the subject of corpus callosotomies. Doesn't make his argument any less absurd, though.)
And I am in fact denying that the epic, in its oldest incarnation, is
deeply introspective -- the only convincing bits that show this are
from later Akkadian versions.
And I disagree entirely. The Epic is essentially and unavoidably introspective. The whole
point of it is introspection. Are you arguing about the way it is written? Can you point me to a specific translation that you think supports this?
"Bicameral" refers to the functional hypothesis -- the idea that during
the 12,000-4000 YBP period people took marching orders from
hallucinations.
Which is ridiculous. I've read the Old Testament, the Iliad and Odyssey, parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh, various translations of Greek and Roman and Egyptian myth. The people who wrote these works, the fictional or fictionalised characters who appear in them, are modern people, no different to you or I except in the specifics of their beliefs.
Do you realise just how many people today fervently believe in gods, angels, demons, ghosts, spirits and other such supernatural phenomena? Do you have any grasp on how many of these people believe they have received actual signs and messages from these beings? Have you read the
New Testament? The Odyssey? Modern religious literature? If introspection only arose when the bicameral mind unified (which I absolutely dismiss), and the bicameral mind was the source of beliefs in spirits (which I absolutely dismiss), then why do we see clear evidence of introspection before the event and incontrovertible evidence of belief in spirits after?
"Zero biological evidence", eh? So the dozens of genes expressed during
brain development that have been shown to have undergone strong
selection in the last 6K years -- those are what, nothing?
Yep. Show me
one that is actually linked to this "bicameral mind" foolishness. Show me the recessive trait that would have to have persisted to the modern day. Show me the individuals today who won a double helping of this gene in the genetic lottery. Show me that they are different, mentally and genetically, from the rest of us.
We don't really know precisely what they do yet, but the evidence for
cognitive change in humans over the last few thousand years is there in
the DNA, and it's not controversial.
Fine, "evidence for cognitive change". I'm not denying that humans and the human brain are subject to evolutionary change. I'm saying there is zero evidence for Jaynes' thesis.
Not a major evolutionary change; there's no such thing. It's one small
change (well, technically *two* small changes...) that had big
consequences.
Of
course it's a major evolutionary change, and of course there are such things. You don't get them from single mutations; you don't get them in short periods of time; and you don't get them spreading instantly out to completely isolated sub-populations. From a standpoint of population genetics too, Jaynes' idea is ludicrous.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, April 30 2008 02:16 PM (PiXy!)
12
Not just literature, but what the literature tells us about the
psychology of the authors. Jaynes actually tried to hedge by suggesting
ways that this could have been a solely cultural thing and did some
handwaving about plasticity (ironic that this is the one area where he
showed insufficient boldness), but a story involving biological change
driven by natural selection actually makes *more* sense than one that
doesn't.
Absurd. Utterly absurd.
Literature
changes over time. If you ever bothered to read any, you would have
noticed this. New forms, new styles, new techniques. At the time the
Epic of Gilgamesh was invented, literature was brand new. There wasn't
anything to refer to, no comparison, no extant body of criticism. There
was oral tradition, but literature was an entirely new invention. We'd
be astonished if there
wasn't a marked difference in literary approaches a thousand years later.
In short, you, like Jaynes, present flimsy and subjective literary evidence, and no biological evidence that such a thing
could happen,
much less that it did happen. Nor do you address any of the obvious
objections to the idea, literary, biological, psychological or
sociological. Not least that any species taking "marching orders from
hallucinations" is doomed to extinction in a matter of weeks, as we can
observe in creatures infested with certain types of parasite.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, April 30 2008 02:16 PM (PiXy!)
13
"Show me
one that is actually
linked to this "bicameral mind" foolishness. Show me the recessive
trait that would have to have persisted to the modern day. Show me the
individuals today who won a double helping of this gene in the genetic
lottery. Show me that they are different, mentally and genetically,
from the rest of us."
Working on it.

"Show me" is an attitude I respect, but all I can do at the moment is write out an IOU.
Re: pop-gen, you're wrong. Take lactase persistance as a toy model: 6000 years ago, nobody in Europe had it. Now the vast majority do. The frequency of dominant alleles under positive directional selection follows a sigmoid curve as a function of time: lots of time at low frequencies (>0.2), a comparatively sudden zoom to high frequency (<0.

, then a long time approaching fixation. The time frame is exactly what you'd expect for something with a selection differential of around 10%, of which we have several established examples in humans. Again, not controversial.
Hallucinations can actually be adaptive. When someone draws using perspective, you're hallucinating a 3D image. And a damn good thing, too. Evolution doesn't care about how veridical your perceptions are except insofar as they *work*.
I'm in kind of a rush myself, so that's going to have to be the extent of it -- engaging in exegesis of ancient texts would turn into this into a week-long marathon and I'm sure we have better things to do. This is kind of inherently futile anyway, since you're speaking from a position of comparative ignorance and I'm speaking from one of self-imposed secrecy since I'm hoping to get some papers out of this eventually. I mainly interjected because it annoys me when people bash things they haven't taken the trouble to understand just to make themselves feel clever.
Toodles.
Posted by: Shoshin at Thursday, May 01 2008 03:05 AM (5XE7d)
14
Smilies: oh how I hate them. 0.8 != sunglasses.
Posted by: Shoshin at Thursday, May 01 2008 03:06 AM (5XE7d)
15
Also managed to get my < and > mixed up. How embarrassing.
Posted by: Shoshin at Thursday, May 01 2008 03:16 AM (5XE7d)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Stupid Files
Today's dose of burning stupid comes to us courtesy of Lynne McTaggart of
The Intention Experiment.
What is The Intention Experiment? Well, about 13 hours from now, McTaggart plans to change the spectroscopic fingerprint of a sample of water
by thinking at it.
Yes, you read that correctly.
She's planning to point a Raman spectrometer at a beaker of water, and think good (or perhaps bad) thoughts at it for a few hours, in hopes that it will change. Change what? Well, she doesn't exactly say. There are three things that can change a spectroscopic fingerprint: A change in the actual chemical structure of the compound you're studying; uneven mixtures of impurities; and random variation because you're running an experiment with no controls and no clearly stated goals.
It's a bit like modern "ghost hunters": Get hold of an extremely sensitive scientific instrument that you don't understand, and wave it about until it registers a reading that it wasn't showing before. It doesn't matter what the reading is, because you haven't bothered to make any predictions or set up any controls. Any reading at all will do.
More generally, this is termed a
unicorn hunt: Go out, find
something, and call it a unicorn.
McTaggart brings real scientific expertise to the table, in the form of, well, I'll let her tell it:
Scientists like Dr. Rustum Roy, who is an expert on water, at the
University of Pennsylvania, have recorded the structuring of water with
electromagnetic radiation.
Professor Roy is an elderly but respected materials scientist specialising in ceramics, which is not notably a category featuring water among its members. He famously lent his name to a paper proposing structures in water as a potential mechanism for homeopathy based entirely on Raman spectroscopic analysis of
alcohol. Which is not only not a ceramic, but also not water. Said paper also lacked any proper controls, or any relevant discussion of what was being measured and how. Again, all they were looking for was anomalies, with no prior definition of what would be considered anomalous.
In short, it's unicorns all the way down.
McTaggart is no fool: She's using the notoriety of this ludicrous bit of pseudo-science to flog her books and DVDs, which I can recommend highly to no-one at all.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
01:44 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Sounds like they should be using not a Raman spectrometer, but an E-meter
Posted by: mikey at Saturday, May 17 2008 02:46 PM (LvSr1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Friday, April 25
Joy In The Mid-Afternoon
CPanel does its daily update thing, and promptly commits suicide by segfault. I've managed to get CPanel going again, but WHM is still down. Bleh and double bleh.
Update: Nothing I tried seem to fix it, so I waited a day and did a forced update of the entire mess. And now it works.
Automatic updates: They're good for you. Yep.
Well, to be fair, that's the first time in four years of running CPanel that it's spontaneously combusted in that fashion. Which is rather better luck than I've had with Windows.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
03:31 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.
Thursday, April 24
An Exemplar Of Exactitude
Not.
Ben Stein, quoting Charles Darwin in
Expelled Exposed in an effort to tie Evolution to Nazism:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We
civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the
sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their
kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will
doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly
anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
And what Darwin actually said:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.
We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process
of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the
sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their
utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is
reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a
weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus
the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one
who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that
this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising
how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man
himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Quote mining is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
(Thanks to
Scientific American, who go on to list five more things that Ben Stein doesn't want you to know.)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
06:19 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.
Tuesday, April 22
All Expelled, All The Time
Okay, probably not.
I haven't seen the film, and probably won't bother, and as soon as I get a chance to take a look at the new anime season I'll have something more interesting to talk about.
But the deceit and wilful ignorance displayed by the film, and the near-total lack of understanding of science displayed in the thread at LGF, have irked me.
So here's a
review of the movie that takes director Nathan Frankowski and presenter and co-writer Ben Stein solidly to task, not just for being comprehensively dishonest, but also for producing a crappy film.
Be sure to stay for the surprise ending. No, not the film, the
review.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
02:12 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
1
just saw Expelled... Ben Stein's goal in making Expelled (i gather) is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about motivations that drive American academia and a lot of other behind-the-scenes worldview that we tend to take for granted.
Posted by: patrick at Wednesday, April 23 2008 08:15 AM (JY+S5)
2
If that's his goal, why does he need to lie about it?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, April 23 2008 08:42 AM (PiXy!)
3
erm...that is not stein's goal.
he is IQ baiting.
By now a lot of you will have seen
Expelled.You may think that Expelled is as advertised:
the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry.
Or you may agree with
this:
One
of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time,
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed†is a conspiracy-theory rant
masquerading as investigative inquiry.
But both of you would be wrong.
What Expelled really is, is
IQ-baiting.You think that Stein is giving Acadame and Science a smackdown, which you likely percieve as well deserved.
But in reality,
he is playing you.He is selling tickets on your reactions.
Expelled isn't going to make Academe and Science open their minds to IDT.
It just validates your outrage that real scientists wont discuss IDT.
And also, your outrage that you can't make them.
The
abortion-artist hoax was also
IQ-baiting.
She played you. She harvested your instantaneous outraged reactions for her performance art.
Look at captain ed here.
If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete.
But as all
real scientists actually know, science is all about challenging orthodoxy.
Flat-earth was the orthodoxy, geo-centrism the heresy.
then geo-centrism was the orthodoxy, and helio-centrism became the heresy.
Unfortunately for Ed's argument, IDT is the orthodoxy, and TOE is the heresy.
The problem with falling for IQ-baiting scams....is that it makes you look stupid.
It reinforces a cultural stereotype.
I think you should try to be smarter.
Posted by: matoko_chan at Wednesday, April 23 2008 10:39 AM (bqE4v)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Monday, April 21
The Stupid On Sunday
Like
Glenn Reynolds, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has linked to
Expelled Exposed, drawing the predictable ire of many of his readers in a thread that's
1600 comments and growing fast.
(Update: 2300 comments, and still growing.)Let's be clear: Charles - again like Glenn - comes down firmly on the side of science. And does so in the full knowledge of what will happen. I can rant freely here and rarely get more than a handful of comments. PZ Myers can point out Ben Stein's follies and be guaranteed a mostly supportive audience. Charles knew he was going to ignite a flame war, but he waded in anyway, because this stuff matters.
Also because, hey, who doesn't love a flame war?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
12:55 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Wildly off-topic.
Are we not able to tweak the "post date" field under "options" in the post editing page? I had an old draft I decided to publish, but it's stuck half-way down the mainpage based on the original draft date. I've tried to adjust the post date to push it to the top without making it sticky, but it won't budge.
Posted by: Will at Tuesday, April 22 2008 09:44 AM (WnBa/)
2
The quick solution is to copy it to a new post, then delete the old one.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Tuesday, April 22 2008 11:43 AM (+rSRq)
3
It definitely works (I used it yesterday) as long as you keep the format correct. If it can't parse the date, it ignores you, which is probably what's happening.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, April 22 2008 01:04 PM (PiXy!)
4
if....dr. reynolds is squarely on the side of science.....
why link captain stupid in the first place?
Posted by: matoko_chan at Wednesday, April 23 2008 07:18 AM (bqE4v)
5
i mean.....that is when i called dr. reynolds a theocon shill.
not when he mentioned stein.
when he linked captain stupid.
i had been spammin dr. reynolds with expelledexposed links for a week.
i sent dr. reynolds a fisk of ed's post.
yet....he still linked him.
/shrug
Posted by: matoko_chan at Wednesday, April 23 2008 08:18 AM (bqE4v)
6
if....dr. reynolds is squarely on the side of science.....
why link captain stupid in the first place?
Glenn called Intelligent Design "pernicious twaddle", which is as accurate a description as you can get in two words.
He's posted a number of times on the subject of academic freedom, and that's probably why he linked to the review of Expelled - unaware that on that subject as well the film is largely pernicious twaddle. When I sent him the link, he was happy to post it.
I'm not sure why he used my link and not yours. I did spend some time carefully phrasing my email to be as concise as possible; he must get hundreds of emails a day, after all.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, April 23 2008 08:51 AM (PiXy!)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sunday, April 20
The Stupid, It Burns, Local Edition
Tim Blair
has an update - 21 updates, in fact - on the world-class inanity that is Australia's new federal government.
And we have another 30 months of this crap to look forward to.
Update: Learned a new word:
woftam. Much like a
wombat, but no brains involved.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
06:06 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
The Stupid, It Burns
Some of the later comments come from people with some sort of clue, but there really are people who think
Expelled has
some sort of value, rather than being a lie based on a lie based on a lie.
Congratulations. The Religious Right has found its Michael Moore.
(Via
Instapundit, who writes
At any rate, according to the comments, at least, there's more to the film than I.D. twaddle. Yeah. The film blames the Holocaust on Charles Darwin. That's something more than the usual I.D. twaddle alright.)
Update:
Stupidity abounds. Again, some well-informed souls brave the fires of wilful ignorance, but the post and the comments thread alike are, for the most part, hot air.
Update the Second: Glenn has now added a link to
Expelled Exposed - possibly because I emailed that link to him, though he adds:
I hate writing about this stuff because -- pardon me while I speak
plainly -- the people on both sides of this issue are assholes. I mean,
even by the low standards of Internet discussion. I'm getting email
calling me a "theocon shill" for mentioning Stein, and email telling me
I'll burn in hell for calling Intelligent Design "pernicious twaddle."
Frankly, the rabid atheists and the rabid creationists seem an awful
lot alike, and no proper hell could be truly hellish without the both
of them yammering away at each other. Feh.
There's a certain degree of truth in this, but the two groups are not equally detestable. While I dislike unnecessary rudeness at any time, if you insist on being rude, it helps to also be
right. cf. Gregory House.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
06:03 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.
1
One should never debate a creationist without first locking up all breakable items within reach... including the creationist.
-j
Posted by: J Greely at Monday, April 21 2008 07:00 AM (2XtN5)
2
Have you ever noticed how atheists on TV are always grumpy old men?
(Except for StarGate... the whole SG-1 team are atheists, if you watch closely enough. But you have to really look for it.)
And House is a drug addict to boot. But at least he's funny.
Posted by: Yahzi at Tuesday, April 22 2008 01:23 PM (yn9dj)
3
Well, SG-1 has a good reason for their atheism - they meet the gods every week.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, April 22 2008 02:23 PM (PiXy!)
4
Ya - and every other week, they
kill one.
One of my favorite moments: Teal'c has been brain-washed by Apothesis and is back to worshiping him. Carter is trying to argue with him, and he says, "Why do you challenge my faith? I don't challenge yours." And she says, "That's different."
Putting that cop-out in the mouth of that character served two purposes: it let the script-writers say something they could never say out loud, and it was funny as heck.
Posted by: Yahzi at Tuesday, April 22 2008 03:35 PM (yn9dj)
5
erm....i called dr. reynolds a theocon shill, andrew.
it was me.i am so exercised about Expelled because it is just
IQ-baiting.i mailed dr. pournelle...im trying to get chaos-manner to talk about it.
Posted by: matoko_chan at Wednesday, April 23 2008 02:39 AM (bqE4v)
6
dr.reynolds did tell me that he linked expelledexposed bcause you asked him too.
it was a really good thing i think.
charles and zombie defended evolution over 2500 comments
charles has over 30 trackbacks
capn ed got 2...one of which was yours...an t'other one was dr. reynolds.
hehe
so cool to watch....memetic transmission and diffusion ...
right out of cavalli-sforza
Posted by: matoko_chan at Wednesday, April 23 2008 02:47 AM (bqE4v)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday, April 16
Bugger And Double Bugger
I was thinking of doing a full system backup of mu.nu last night, but decided to leave it for another day because it was already very late.
Naturally, the system crashed overnight. Drive failure.
The only thing on the plus side is that it was the backup drive that failed.
So we're back, minus backups.
mee.nu is actually on a different server, but relies on the mu.nu server for DNS. I need to untangle that a bit so that this doesn't happen any more.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
10:16 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I was wondering what had happened. Rumours mentioned a DDOS on Jawa, but I couldn't figure out how that would knock mee.nu off the air.
Posted by: Will at Wednesday, April 16 2008 10:27 AM (WnBa/)
2
I figured it was a something of the sort... either that or Australia was taken out altogether. Since that might just have made a dent in the news up here - I thought I'd wait and see what really crashed.
Posted by: Teresa at Wednesday, April 16 2008 11:17 AM (rVIv9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
88kb generated in CPU 0.0663, elapsed 1.9036 seconds.
57 queries taking 1.8853 seconds, 256 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.