And now for something completely different

Or is it? I’ve just been introduced to the work of Tim Wise, and it’s fabulous stuff: all about how we view race through the distorting lenses of denial and privilege and class. He’s a terrific speaker, I guarantee you that it’s worth your time to take an hour and listen to this lecture.

Oh, yeah, a white guy lecturing on race…shouldn’t we be listening to a person of color on these issues? Of course we should, but if you just listen to the first five minutes you’ll get his confession: there’s an esthetic to who people will listen to, and the neatly groomed white man is right at the top of the list. Deeper in, one interesting point he makes is that the use of the word “underprivileged” is endemic, but “overprivileged” isn’t even in the dictionary (hey, he’s right, too: as I wrote that, my convenient electronic spellcheck highlighted the word with a red underscore. I must have made a mistake…that concept doesn’t exist).

People are selfish bastards. If you have privilege — and I do to a high degree — it’s always a tendency to cling to it and hold it tightly to ourselves and rationalize our entitlements, which perpetuates the divisions. The “underprivileged” aren’t the source of the problem, it’s the overprivileged who work constantly to maintain our position. We are the problem. To think that we can tell the oppressed that it’s their responsibility to fix their problem is doubly wrong: it’s our responsibility to fix our problem.

(Also on Sb)

John Haught is a coward and a theologian

I’ve been in debates and arguments where I felt I missed the mark or didn’t do my best job, and I shrug and move on — and I also figure it’s all public and it’s all going to end up on youtube. It also ends up on youtube when I do a good job, which is a bit of a pain in the butt: I have to keep coming up with new talks because I know the crowd that listens to me tends to churn through internet content so thoroughly. It’s part of the job nowadays, I fear. Talks aren’t just public, they get preserved forever on the internet.

John Haught doesn’t get it. Maybe it’s because he’s a really, really old guy (why, he’s got to be a whole ten years older than me, and even has a few years on that geezer Coyne) and hasn’t kept up. Maybe it’s because he’s a Christian and thus unaware of the nature of the universe. Maybe it’s because he’s the opposite of a gentleman and a scholar. John Haught is suppressing the video of the debate he had with Jerry Coyne. He signed off on permission before the debate, but has now reneged, claiming he did poorly because of the presence of “Jerry’s groupies”, and that the event “failed to meet what I consider to be reasonable standards of fruitful academic exchange”. He got his ass kicked, in other words.

I find this deplorable and disgraceful. As I say, it’s a nuisance that I have to keep writing new talks because they get so thoroughly exposed on the internet, but that’s also a benefit: it means tens of thousands hear a talk that I gave to an in-person audience of only a few hundred, and it means my words are not only heard, but are open to criticism. That’s important. That’s also an obligation and responsibility of any public intellectual.

Oh, well, as it stands, that just means Jerry Coyne’s account of the debate is definitive.

By the way, it’s not just Haught that fails the test of a scholar: the Gaines Center at the University of Kentucky, which sponsored the debate and recorded it, must also be held accountable for going along with the craven suppression. Their reputation is being sacrificed on the altar of John Haught’s vanity — I’m not impressed.

The blindness of some scientists

Jen McCreight had a wake-up call. She wrote a draft of an NSF application that required a personal statement, she wrote about the poor attitude towards evolution she experienced in college, and sent it off to some local people for review. They criticized it, which is not a problem — a good shredding over is always helpful — but the reasons they objected were deplorable.

Some of my reviewers, including a professor, insisted that I was “dogmatic,” and “wanted people to believe in evolution just because that’s what you happen to believe in.” That rejecting evolution isn’t a “terrible” attitude. That I shouldn’t be “shocked” that some biology majors don’t believe in evolution, because not everyone has to be like me. That wanting to help people learn about evolution means I thought they were stupid.

That I came off as, I quote, “Dawkins-esque.”

It was not a “destroy all Christians” essay. It didn’t declare creationists stupid. It described a real problem and Jen’s motivation for addressing it. The problem we often find in the higher levels of academe is that there are people who refuse to recognize anti-evolution as a real problem. It doesn’t affect them — I can assure you that within the community of scientists creationism is not ever a problem. The little dweebs show up at meetings and are ignored or laughed at over beer, and that’s about it.

You can pretend, then, that it’s not a real concern as long as you never step outside the smart, rigorous environment of your colleagues, and don’t even bother to look at the activities of the students on your campus. You can do that, too; it’s even rewarded. Successful scientists are focused and disciplined and single-mindedly connected to their professional activities. The student outreach pastor on campus can be giving weekly showings of Kent Hovind videos, the local community can be hounding the high school science teacher to stop teaching evolution, and the governor of your state can be running for president while declaring evolution is a lie, and you can still get your work done. That is, until the day all your students reject the stuff that you teach (which, for many research faculty, doesn’t matter anyway), all the prospective graduate students from America are stealth creationists (no matter, you’re only taking on European and Chinese students now), and the president makes your research unfundable at the NIH (ouch, finally something that hurts!). This hasn’t happened yet, though, so let’s not worry about it.

Jen wasn’t dogmatic. She was aware. And sane.

It’s dismaying that some of her reviewers seemed to think evolution was just her quirky personal belief, rather than the only viable theory built on evidence that biology has to work with … and that students who reject it aren’t competent to advance science.

Flu poll

I saw the movie Contagion last night — it’s good, but chilling. You are at the mercy of viruses that are evolving far faster than we are, and our lives depend on the luck of our genetics, the random permutations of recombination in pathogens, a bit on our efforts in hygiene and social practices, and a great deal on science supplementing our immune systems. We’re one strong pandemic away from a breakdown of the social order, and we rely on science and vaccinations to help protect this tasty giant petri dish of human meat we call planet Earth.

So I’m not too sympathetic when the Edmonton Sun asks a stupid question.

Do you trust flu shots?

Yes 43%
No 56%

Asking for “trust” is silly, too. I don’t trust anything absolutely, but I provisionally trust the science behind vaccines. I think they’re just trying to encourage doubt with the phrasing.

(Also on Sb)

Flu poll

I saw the movie Contagion last night — it’s good, but chilling. You are at the mercy of viruses that are evolving far faster than we are, and our lives depend on the luck of our genetics, the random permutations of recombination in pathogens, a bit on our efforts in hygiene and social practices, and a great deal on science supplementing our immune systems. We’re one strong pandemic away from a breakdown of the social order, and we rely on science and vaccinations to help protect this tasty giant petri dish of human meat we call planet Earth.

So I’m not too sympathetic when the Edmonton Sun asks a stupid question.

Do you trust flu shots?

Yes 43%
No 56%

Asking for “trust” is silly, too. I don’t trust anything absolutely, but I provisionally trust the science behind vaccines. I think they’re just trying to encourage doubt with the phrasing.

(Also on FtB)

Ben Cochran’s classic not-pology

The East Carolinian has published excuses for their lapses in judgment for publishing the appalling exercise in misogyny by Ben Cochran. The editors are all utterly reprehensible.

Kelly Nurge claims it was OK to publish it, because they also published a rebuttal, and “presenting both sides to the issue was important.” She has a bright future ahead of her in he-said/she-said journalism. But you know, sometimes the two sides to an issue are bugfucking pustule-popping insane vs. rational coherent normality. Did the East Carolinian really need an article recommending that women’s reproductive health ought not to be supported by campus medical services because it gets in the way of Ben Cochran’s priority snot-blowing? Is this really an issue that anyone takes seriously anywhere on the freakin’ planet?

Kathryn Little claims that the “editing process is an in-depth one”, and is mainly peeved that an unedited version of Cochran’s piece was released — you know, the one that called a woman’s genitalia a “hatchet wound”, rather than the infinitely more genteel “lady-bits” that was in the edited version. Content, irrelevant; following the official process, essential. Then she seems quite pleased that her paper got national attention. Yeah, there’s another one on the fast-track to a journalism career…Rupert Murdoch has his eye on her, I’m sure.

And lastly, there’s Ben Cochran. This is supposedly an apology. It’s a sneering, sarcastic bit of badly written bombast pretending to be an apology.

If you were among the many who were offended by my column last week, then let me take this opportunity to offer you a heartfelt apology. I am well aware that my stance was not a popular one. As an Opinion columnist, my primary goal is to generate informed discussion. To that end, I intentionally try to be provocative. As such, sometimes my columns offend people. Please understand that my intent was not to cause people to become enraged. I simply hoped they would disagree with the expressed opinion and state reasons for that disagreement. I wanted to see a lively debate, and hopefully, learn something in the process. The position I argued for is a valid opinion by virtue of the fact that it is an opinion. Unfortunately, my word choice was not the best. I cannot believe I said “conscientious” when I really meant “conscious,” among other things. From now on, I will take greater care to exercise better judgment. As always, your responses are welcomed and encouraged.

Often, campus newspapers are almost fully independent — students are just handed the responsibility of putting a paper together with minimal faculty supervision. Sometimes, they end up wallowing so deep in juvenilia and irresponsible scribbling that it’s clear that they do need some more mature guidance, especially when they drag the reputation of a place like East Carolina University into disrepute. Have these students had any training in journalism? Or is this what passes for responsible journalism at ECU?

Offending people is fine when you’ve got a purpose and a goal behind it. I fail to see anywhere in Cochran’s whiny rant any reason or justification for regarding women with such contempt. It is true that his opinion that women are sluts, harlots, sex mongers, and sex fiends is actually an opinion, but usually in an opinion column you’re expected to defend your controversial position, not just assume it as given.

The Fox Effect

What a curious phenomenon: this is a video of the notorious Fox Effect, in which an actor pretended to be an expert and babbled fluff and nonsense at an audience of psychiatrists, and they sat and swallowed it and came away with an impression that the speaker was competent. I knew the content was going to be garbage, but I have to wonder if my prior knowledge colored my perception, because listening to it now, it all sounded immensely vacuous — I kept trying to catch a cogent or useful point, and he never delivered any.

I wonder if this could be pulled off in front of an audience that deals with more concrete data than psychiatrists — could an actor speak in the language of gels and in situs and sequences and fool an audience of molecular biologists? I don’t think so; it’s too specialized and specific. But I could be wrong, somebody ought to test it.

The video makes a point that this effect could be important in teaching — it strongly affects student evaluations. All you have to do is go to the “Rate My Professor” site and discover that one of the categories for evaluation there is whether the professor is “hot” — and, dammit, I think I’ve failed on that parameter for my entire life (I haven’t actually looked, though: I shudder at the prospect of seeing those weird reviews full of disgruntled students who didn’t pass one of my courses).

(Also on Sb)

Fairness and reason can be opposed by a poll

I’m impressed. The principal at Edgewater Primary School, Julie Tombs, ended the tradition of reciting the Lord’s Prayer at assemblies after receiving some complaints, and she did it for good principled reasons.

…at this school we have students from a range of backgrounds and it is important to consider all views and not promote one set of religious beliefs and practices over another.

Exactly right! This is a simple decision that schools should not be in the business of promoting sectarian religion. But of course, even in Australia the facts can’t be allowed to stand, so opposition must be gathered in the guise of a democratic poll. And so far, the Australians are disappointing me.

Should the Lord’s Prayer be banned from WA schools?

Yes 26.92%

No 54.78%

In state schools only 10.96%
I don’t care 7.34%

People who read Pharyngula might have a different perspective on this issue. Maybe you should make your views known.

I guess everything looks Christian to a Christian

I would agree that Christian imagery permeates our culture, unfortunately — but you know, sometimes Jesus isn’t the focus. You wouldn’t know that, though from this list of 50 Films That You Wouldn’t Think Were Christian, But Actually Are. Some I would agree with; The Green Mile, sure, that’s a big ol’ blatant Christ allegory. But the others…whoa.

Would you believe Taxi Driver is a Christian movie? Travis Bickle is “God’s lonely man, working in the modern day equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah. But instead of simply trying to ‘lead a good life’ or ‘do the right thing’, Travis Bickle turns violence and retribution on those he deems most deserving, to the point where he threatens to tip over into the darkness himself.” Yes, I can sort of see it: a violent psychopath does have a lot in common with Jesus Christ, and of course, every 12-year-old prostitute is actually Mary Magdalene.

I expect there will be a new show put on in church basements all across the country: The Rocky Horror Picture Show is now revealed as secretly espousing Christian doctrine.

Considering that it contains lines like “give yourself over to absolute pleasure”, you wouldn’t think that Rocky Horror would have much time for Christian morality. But in its closing section all becomes clear, as Brad and Janet emerge from their ordeal with Frank N. Furter like Adam and Eve crawling from the vanquished serpent, out of the Garden of Eden and into an unknown future. Throw in Charles Gray as a disappointed, distant God and the effect is complete.

Please do send me photos of your local Baptist minister struttin’ his stuff in fishnet stockings.

Other films in the Christian vein: Eraserhead, Total Recall, Bladerunner, A Clockwork Orange. Bring that list to church (those of you who go to church at all, which probably isn’t many of you) and ask that they be shown in Sunday School!

Funny thing, though: I’m not seeing much correspondence between this list and CAPalert.