graduate seminar May 8, 2008
Posted by ocmpoma in : supernaturalism , add a commentThere’s an interesting post by Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias on the films Expelled and Sicko.
I’ll start off by saying that I haven’t seen either film, but have read more and am more interested, generally, in Expelled. Here are what I consider the most relevant quotes from the post:
“The movie makes a good case for its main claim, that intelligent design advocates are shunned by academia.”
I think this is probably the central argument of the post, and, having not seen the movie, I certainly can’t refute it. But I don’t see a need to, really. Indeed, I don’t think this is a claim that needs much of a case to be made for it, as academics are right to shun ID and its advocates, just as they should shun all pseudoscience. I think it’s unfortunate that Hanson, at least based on remarks in the comments, seems unaware that ID is, if not creationism in a cheap tuxedo, creationism in a lab coat.
“[The film] overdid how understanding Darwin leads people to reject God, and emboldened Nazis to brutality. These claims are not relevant to the truth of intelligent design, but they are admittedly true…”
This is perhaps even more unfortunate than Hanson’s apparent ignorance as to the true nature of ID, even if only in wording. While a robust evolutionary theory including natural selection and genetic mutation certainly bolsters the case of those who reject supernaturalism — as do all robust scientific theories, regardless of the topic concerned — I would hardly say that it leads people to reject supernaturalism (much less the Judeo-Christian god), especially in and of itself. I also think that it’s stretching to say that understanding Darwinian evolution emboldened the Nazis — and certainly to say that the claim is “admittedly true”. People can’t agree if Adolf Hitler was religious or not, let alone if he embraced a specific scientific theory. To make a claim about not only Hitler’s, but the motivations of Nazis in general is, as I said, stretching. Moreover, ethnic bigotry, totalitarian leanings, and genocide are much older human practices than is scientific inquiry, let alone Darwin’s theory.
I’m happy to allow that Expelled could feature a more well-reasoned and balanced approach than does Sicko. It could well be that Moore’s film utilized even more dishonest tactics in its interviews and distribution. Certainly, the case which Expelled tries to make is a much more concrete one than is the case Sicko tries to make, and it is entirely likely that a truly neutral viewer of both movies would have more to mentally chew on after watching the former. I certainly agree with Hanson’s point that the ‘academic freedom’ alluded to in Expelled is pretty much a myth. And I’m not going to debate whether one film is ‘better’ at all — that’s opinion only, in my view.
Expelled could easily be a ‘graduate seminar’ in comparison to Sicko — that’s not an issue that I feel capable of questioning. Instead, I have to wonder how much of Hanson’s post is willful misunderstanding and how much is an attempt to open the eyes of those who are happy to tear into flimsy, baseless, and slipshod propaganda* when it is directed against an obviously robust scientific theory but keep their eyes tightly shut when it comes to an area which they have much more faith in — health care. It is unfortunate that many of us who staunchly deny the patently ridiculous when it comes to public education will subscribe to all kinds of ludicrous ideas when it comes to public policy…
*I wrote at some length several years ago about how one does not need to know any science at all, really, to realize that ID is indeed creationist propaganda.
Tags for this article: art , creationism , film , politics , science , supernaturalism
[?][More Help]
you’ve got to be kidding May 6, 2008
Posted by ocmpoma in : supernaturalism , add a commentHey, I like Colbert as much as the next guy — although I like the Daily Show more — but I’m not annoyed that he didn’t make the cut for FP’s “Top 100 Public Intellectuals” in and of itself.
Rather, I’m annoyed both for the reasons cited that excluded him
“…we simply did not feel that [your work] contained sufficient analytical rigor…”
and, taking that into account, who then apparently did make the cut
“…such luminaries as Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, or the pope.” (emphasis mine -oc)
Please tell me that last bit was a joke, FP. Please.
Tags for this article: society , stupidity
[?][More Help]
sciblingvids February 6, 2008
Posted by ocmpoma in : supernaturalism , add a commentLaelaps and Pharyngula have recently posted some video clips, wherein prominent folks discuss fossils, evolution, and the inherent idiocy of supernaturalism (as manifested by theism):
at Laelaps
at Pharyngula
bonus round: Afarensis
Tags for this article: stupidity , supernaturalism
[?][More Help]
worth 990 words January 21, 2008
Posted by ocmpoma in : supernaturalism , add a commentThe latest xkcd, “The Data So Far” — which has ten words in it — is, as usual, spot on:
(I wonder, should I have a comma after that second double-hyphen up there, or after the second quotation mark..?)
Tags for this article: art , supernaturalism
[?][More Help]
edenics December 31, 2007
Posted by ocmpoma in : language, supernaturalism , add a commentAh, theists — the fun never stops with these guys. Check out this Language Log post on a (rather lame, I must say) mash-up combining biblical literalism, intelligent design, and a corny name.
Tags for this article: creationism , language , stupidity
[?][More Help]
absurder is truer December 24, 2007
Posted by ocmpoma in : supernaturalism , add a commentEver hear the line from theists that the sheer absurdity of their foundational story means that it couldn’t possibly be made up?
Eliezer Yudkowsky has an example of this kind of absurdity, expanding on what has always been one of my favorite blasphemous jokes — and after all, by the logic of the apologetic line mentioned above, well, ya just gotta believe it!
Tags for this article: stupidity , supernaturalism
[?][More Help]
ouch October 1, 2007
Posted by ocmpoma in : supernaturalism , add a commentThis post (with embedded YouTube video) at SceinceBlogs’s Nuerotopia is too good not to link to. The end result, although rather anti-climactic, is worth the wait.
I don’t want to give away the ending, so stop reading if you don’t like spoilers (and/or are a little gullible) . But he just seems so… disappointed.
Oh, well.
Tags for this article: stupidity , supernaturalism
[?][More Help]
bluer September 21, 2007
Posted by ocmpoma in : supernaturalism , add a commentThe Scientific Indian has alerted me to the presence of an essay (free registration required) by Daniel Dennet on AI. Dennet uses the example provided by computer chess-playing programs, Deep Blue among them, to briefly discuss how our brains work — and more importantly, to question our fear of being biological machines:
“Many people still cling, white-knuckled, to a brittle vision of our minds as mysterious immaterial souls, or–just as romantic–as the products of brains composed of wonder tissue engaged in irreducible non-computational (perhaps alchemical?) processes.”
Worth the few moments to register.
Tags for this article: deep thoughts , supernaturalism
[?][More Help]
spoiler alert August 9, 2007
Posted by ocmpoma in : supernaturalism , add a commentI saw The Simpsons Movie last night — by far the best part was brief scene wherein impeding doom…
(more…)
Tags for this article: art , drink , film , society , supernaturalism
[?][More Help]
