peristaltor

To the rabid optimists: Put down the pom-poms. Step away from the pink megaphone. You aren't helping.

Please read this. Without knowing it, without being able to articulated it as well, this has been my philosophy for decades.

I'll first make an up-front declaration of bias: I hate the anti-vaccination crowd.

For those of you unfamiliar with actress, comedianne and centerfold model Jenny McCarthy's hobbies, she has been probably the most visible and outspoken celebrity to endorse the vile lies that childhood vaccines, especially those containing mercury-based preservatives like Thimerisol, cause autism.

I call her positions on vaccine "vile lies" for good reason: At least four peer-reviewed studies have failed to show a connection. That doesn't stop folks -- including celebs like McCarthy and her boyfriend Jim Carrey, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Bill Mahr and a raft of others -- from flogging the Thimerisol horse corpse.

Ms. McCarthy, of course, has reason to be angry at autism; her son suffers from the condition. In this case, though, she has gone completely off the deep end attacking vaccines, even going so far as to suggest that the inevitable preventable deaths that follow people refusing to immunize their own children are a price worth paying to avoid an autism connection that (once again) has been debunked.

Let's really add to evidence of her dissonance. Though she has on more than one occasion likened vaccines to "poison," take a gander at what she had to say about one of the most deadly poisons known to man:

“I love Botox, I absolutely love it. I get it minimally so I can still move my face. But I really do think it’s a savior.”

Anyhoo, I'm not posting this just to rant. I was responding to alobar the other day. I think the Hygienic Hypothesis might be a more likely culprit, and said so. He asked a good question: Why now? ( Why are we facing an explosion of autism? )


Edit: Link and floppy verbiage corrected October 8, 2009.

Decades ago I dated a chess player, a very good chess player, one who trained with chess masters and knew first hand many of the names in competition at that time. One day in the smokey basement pub where chess players meet to play, she came back from a game downright pissed off.

She had lost. Now, she was very good, but people win and lose all the time. I asked her why she was so upset. Her explanation stumped me: "He played like a fish," she said.

Huh?

I had her describe what it meant to play "like a fish." She explained that fish make wild, unpredictable moves, that their play doesn't fit any recognizable pattern.

"But he won," I said. I suppose comments like this are one of the big reasons we haven't seen each other in almost 20 years; but I was honestly then trying to understand the difference between a truly great player who wins and a "fish" who wins. To me, they both win, so what's the difference? After all, if a master sat me down and schooled me in the ways of the board, I wouldn't know if I was undone by a lost Fibunacci Bishop or a Pawn's Gambit or the Flirty Queen. I would only know that I lost. Checkmate.

Out on a walk last night, I finally reasoned why the term "fish" might be used. Hook a fish and drag it out of the water, and it flops about madly on the deck or the dock without getting anywhere. A chess "fish," therefore, might be someone whose play seems erratic and pointless. They don't seem to be getting anywhere, or going anywhere. Ah, but the schooled opponent of the fish is judging the fish's moves on a learned pattern, the movement of one who walks on dry land.

Let's take this fish analogy a bit further and suppose that the fish player is actually playing by rules applicable in the water. Those spastic arches and flops across the board make no sense to us dry-landers; but put us in the drink and we shall see the fish's twitches move it across great distances with an admirable economy of effort. We walkers, on the other hand, slap and kick and flap about and barely get anywhere in the water. (I have a video of myself scuba diving in Hawaii, if anyone needs images of an amateur diver for comic relief.)

All this led me to reconsider a word upon which I've been stumbling quite a bit lately: ( Heuristics. )

A book I loved, Annie's Box by Randall Keynes, has been made into a movie, Creation. It tells Charles Darwin's story through his and his families personal writings, giving deep insight into what happened in a life that lead to probably the most influential scientific theory of all time.

I will not, though, be seeing it in the theater as I had hoped, at least not in the United States:

US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

The distributors have pussied out. Who cares what other people believe? Let those that want to see the movie see the fucking movie. Nope.

The end of the Telegraph article says it all:

Early reviews have raved about the film. The Hollywood Reporter said: "It would be a great shame if those with religious convictions spurned the film out of hand as they will find it even-handed and wise."

Well, we wouldn't want that, now, would we?

Over at antitheism, this little story has folks rightfully enraged. It concerns a tee shirt the high school marching band had made for itself:



Cute, eh? As much as I dismay at the strictly hierarchical ascent model, the March of Man has become an icon and thus becomes ripe for humor. This shirt works.

Not, though, according to the local wing nuts:

Assistant band director Brian Kloppenburg said the shirts were designed by him, band director Jordan Summers and Main Street Logo. Kloppenburg said the shirts were intended to portray how brass instruments have evolved in music from the 1960s to modern day. Summers said they chose the evolution of man because it was “recognizable.”

The band debuted the T-shirts when it marched in the Missouri State Fair parade. Summers said he was surprised when he received a direct complaint after the parade.

Although the shirts don’t directly violate the district’s dress code, Assistant Superintendent Brad Pollitt said complaints by parents made him take action.

“I made the decision to have the band members turn the shirts in after several concerned parents brought the shirts to my attention,” Pollitt said.

Pollitt said the district was required by law to remain neutral on religion. . . . (Emphasis mine.)

Wait, huh? How is using a well-known scientific icon taking a position on a religious issue in any way whatsoever? Keep reading.

High School junior Adam Tilley said he understood why the shirts were repossessed.

“I can see where the parents are coming from,” he said. “Evolution has always been controversial.”

Yes, Adam, evolution (in your lifetime) has "always" been controversial. Too true, that. It has also been controversial since it was proposed way back in 1859. But it hasn't been this controversial, Adam, in many, many years. Why? Because, I believe, many people have fallen down on the job quite literally, something Mr. Pollit can demonstrate. For further illustration, let's hear from one of your band mates:

“It’s not like we are saying God is bad,” sophomore band member Denyel Luke said. "We aren’t promoting evolution.”

And within this simple statement, we find the problem.

As long as these children have been alive, they have suffered under an imaginary, oppressive belief that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection somehow challenges any religious tenet. This belief enshrines the concept of a false duality, a logical fallacy that maintains if position A is right, then position/opinion B is wrong.

Note what I did right there. A is a position, while B is a position/opinion. Why did I do that? Because Darwin's theory is based upon and supported by observation and the scientific method, while the religious tenets of the faithful -- in this case, supposedly Christianity -- are based on centuries of tradition and texts dating back millenia . . . not on observable phenomena parsed into fact.

And here's where the reporter sharing that story through the The Sedalia Democrat fails: He or she failed to note that the comments made by Pollit and Denyel are factually inaccurate. Promoting evolution is not "saying God is bad."

I mean, jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, people, how hard is it to call a local university and get a correcting quote from a professor conversant in Darwin's theory? How hard is it to pull something simple from Stephen Jay Gould's writings? By not correcting that student's statement, the reporter lets the statement stand in the public record unchallenged by fact.

And that unchallenged statement will stand in the eyeballs of every reader as a subtle cue -- "evolution challenges religion," it will whisper. Sometime later, perhaps in a bar, perhaps at a family gathering, someone who read that and many, many other stories like it will pipe up in the discussion, perhaps to mutter, "Yeah, evolution is fine for you to believe; but I believe in God, and evolution challenges that."

Yes, that person will be wrong, wrong, wrong, for more reasons than I can cram into a simple LJ entry like this one. Yes, that person has every right to be wrong, that I acknowledge; but wouldn't it be better if he or she was at least presented the factually accurate position by people paid to present factually accurate positions?!?

Christ on a rubber crutch, I am sick of these battles. They are so very, very avoidable. All we need to do in the public sphere is specify that "facts" are those nagging statements that can be supported time and time again by directed, objective observation. It's that simple.

And, I know, it's also too much to ask.

Sigh.


Addendum, The Next Day: Via Pharyngula comes a new report on how well each state teaches evolution in its schools. Missouri's C grade might explain both the mistaken parental outrage at the shirt attacking any religion, and the fact that those complainers failed to realize how outdated the Progress of Man image really is to the science of evolution today.

Timely!


How does your state rate?

Skeptic magazine editor Michael Shermer (The guy from the Baloney Detection Kit video) lays down the skeptical, scientific approach in this Scientific American article:

The principle of positive evidence applies to all claims. Skeptics are from Missouri, the Show-Me state. Show me a Sasquatch body. Show me the archaeological artifacts from Atlantis. Show me a Ouija board that spells words with securely blindfolded participants. Show me a Nostradamus quatrain that predicted World War II or 9/11 before (not after) the fact (postdictions don’t count in science). Show me the evidence that alternative medicines work better than placebos. Show me an ET or take me to the Mothership. Show me the Intelligent Designer. Show me God. Show me, and I’ll believe.

Michael Shermer gives the 12-point rundown on questions everyone should be asking all the time. BTW, his books Why People Believe Weird Things and Why Darwin Matters should be required high school reading.

Found a follow-up to something interesting I heard last year about how people cannot be told the truth if the truth disagrees with their preconceptions.

The same sort of issue — the persistence of misperceptions in the face of evidence — has also been intriguing Brendan Nyhan, of Duke University, North Carolina, and Jason Reifler, of Georgia State University. And they have published two fascinating papers providing the results of experiments that they conducted into whether it is possible to correct such errors of fact.

Their conclusions are not a cause for optimism.

I had heard about their study when I was writing my Deist Miasma series, but they were still working on questions I found too fundamental to include before the answers had been found. This new study found what I had suspected all along:

First, correcting a misperception doesn’t really work when the original misperception fits snugly with the subject’s ideology. Second, and worse still, attempting to correct errors often produces a backlash, with the error becoming more firmly believed. (Emphasis mine.)

Lesson: It really doesn't matter that you are right on the facts; people who don't like the facts simply won't listen.

Forgive me, readers, for I have omitted. When I first started The Deist Miasma, I fully expected to answer that last question asked in Part I, Why do many creationists feel so threatened by the scientific explanations for life's diversity? After all, the "Fundamentally" in the post's title refers to the fundamental, underpinning assumptions Behe, Schlafly and Walker all hold that forces their science attacking actions. I wrapped up the third and last installment, though, and forgot to answer that question. Why? I am a forgetful idiot. That's why.

I've added the following to the original Part I. If you'd like to read the entire thing, be my guest. If you remember the original, continue after the cut to the original entry. ( Onward. )

Not familiar with the James Randi Educational Foundation? James has worked tirelessly over the decades to debunk the bunko artists, the crap salespeople that peddle cheap gimmicks as gold, that prey upon the desperate with empty hopes. He does this by demonstrating what cheats these people are, and by offering a simple challenge: If you think you are psychic in any way, come to us and let us prove it. If you can demonstrate your psychic or paranormal powers in a double-blind test, The Randi Foundation give you a million dollars. It's that simple.

So far, no one has accepted the challenge and collected the money. Go figure.

The problem might be, though, that these flim-flam artists don't really need Randi's cash. They make pretty good money peddling lies and deceit to their generally pretty strong followings. If they tell their legion of minions to complain about Randi, they probably will.


Via Pharyngula.

Addendum, April 12, 2009: It looks like Randi is back on the air! Woo-hoo!

Pat Condell fights the threat of fire with a fiery tirade. I likee.

After writing the three parts to this (for me of little stamina) exhausting series, I decided to give it a compendium page.

Part I -- Evidence of Something Fundamentally Different
Part II -- The Tendency to Blame the Stink
Part III -- The Tenacity of Purpose

Also, making this seemingly insignificant entry gives me the opportunity to add something I would have added earlier, had I heard it early enough. I didn't. It's a talk given by the Reverend Thomas Goodhue, author of Curious Bones: Mary Anning and the Birth of Paleontology, part of a three part Darwin Day celebration podcast from Scientific American's Science Talk with Steve Mirsky.* Let me give you a taste:

More than 12,000 clergy . . . have signed a joint declaration that says, "The timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist." An yet, for many Americans (about half of the population according to the Gallup Polls) . . . are still opposed to the theory of evolution and oppose it being taught in the public schools. That's always been a mystery to me, since it's, my whole life, practically, been clear to me it is without doubt the most important scientific theory ever presented. . . . It's almost impossible to understand the biological sciences -- or, as we've just heard, half of the other sciences these days -- without understanding the theory of evolution. Yet people are still agin' it.

. . . I think there are many reasons for this. One has to do -- and without a doubt, this is the most important reason . . . -- shortly after Darwin presented his theory, it was bastardized into something called "Social Darwinism" that had nothing to do with Darwin's scientific theory. (It) was, if anything, more of a theological or religious belief, (stating) that if you survived you were the fittest. It led to a whole series of incredibly racist theories being developed. The whole eugenics . . . movement in America that said people should be sterilized if they were poor to keep them from reproducing. Jim Crow laws across the land were supported by social Darwinism.

. . . . People sometimes talk today as if the battle was between Darwin and the fundamentalists. It really wasn't for generations. The battle was between progress Christians and the Social Darwinists. As is so often the case, movements move away from their founders and people forget that, in this case, Charles Darwin would have been horrified by things that people were saying in the name of Social Darwinism. (His) theory was inspired more by an opposition to slavery, perhaps, than anything else.

But I think, too, there's opposition to the teaching of evolution still today because far too many secular people, far too many agnostics and atheists, assume that most Christians are going to oppose them on the teaching of evolution. For Catholicism and most main-line Protestants, this really isn't a big issue. (Far) too many people who believe in the theory of evolution dismiss the possibility that people of faith could believe in theistic evolution and still be good scientists.

There's much more, and it's good stuff. Enjoy.


*By the way, of all the science-y podcasts out there, Steve does the best job of making the science interesting and entertaining without sucking the meat-and-potatoes detail out of the synopsis. Only the folks at The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe do it better; but, in all fairness, they're format is a tad different.

I started writing the Deist Miasma series with high hopes, but little else. I was missing something, a crucial piece of evidence (as opposed to suspicion) that may have finally surfaced. It's a preliminary study that requires some expansion, but it reinforced the niggling thoughts that started this series enough to motivate me to finish it. ( Onward, interested parties! )

Ever wonder why New Year's Day always falls a week after Xmas Day? Blame Dennis the Short:

Dennis began his career working in Constantinople for Pope Gelasius, translating works in the papal archives from Greek into Latin. Later, under Pope John I, he was still translating - this time working on Easter tables drawn up by Saint Theophilus. The problem was that under the dating system of the time, Easter was difficult to calculate because the calendars weren't correct. Dennis decided to correct the dating system which was then using Anno Diocletani - years since the Roman emperor Diocletian. Diocletian was infamous for persecuting Christians. Dennis wanted to glorify Christ, so he worked on a dating system based on the life of Jesus. . . .

The actual date of Jesus' birth had long been lost or forgotten by the time he started his quest, so Dennis, in his efforts to simplify the convoluted 19-year and 84-year Easter cycles, turned to the only sources he could find - Roman ones. He used them to try and backtrack. Good idea, but his sources were not accurate. Nor was his grasp of mathematics.

How bad were Dennis' sources and math? Herod, the king before which Jesus was presented the king who ordered the census that caused Mary and Joseph to trek to Bethlehem, died in 4 BC. Ah, but I digress. Back to New Year's Day:

Dennis also decided the eighth day after Jesus' birth (traditionally the date of his circumcision, based on Jewish custom) should be the official New Year - the start of year 1 - as his marker. (Emphasis mine.)

It turns out Jesus wouldn't have been named before this ceremony, and for good reason:

The kabbalistic writings teach us that seven days represent the physical world of creation. Thus, when a child has lived for eight days, he has transcended the physical to the metaphysical. The covenant joining body and soul, physical and spiritual, can now take place. A bris has no meaning when performed before the eighth day.

Who knew?

Happy (snip) New Year!


X-Posted to antitheism.


Addendum, later that day: My biblical ignorance corrected by vox_diabolica.

Abandon ye all sense of irony and Join the Paliban!

*head-desk head-desk head-desk head-desk head-desk*

Here's a fun repost from three years ago. It came in an email circulated probably not too widely. Enjoy!

---

Hola a todos!

As some of you may already know Catalonia has some rather unique Christmas traditions - here is a little background, which I thought might interest you, on two of the most peculiar...

The Caganer - a wholesome and fun Catalan addition to the typical Christmas creche figurine family of baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the three kings and shepherds etc. The traditional Caganer is an old Catalan man with a red hat or "barretina" and canvas shoes squatting and "taking a dump" in the manger. This traditional figure is generally viewed as the "immemorial fecundator, whom nature calls even as the Messiah is born. Robert Hughes writes:

"Nothing can distract him from the archetypal task of giving back to the soil the nourishment that supplied it to him".

If you look closely at Joan Miró´s 1921-22 painting "La Granja, Montroig" you will see a child squatting a la Caganer.

Over time, the theme has expanded to include sumo wrestlers, Santa, the Devil, the Pope, Dalí, and recently Barcelona football players such as Eto and Ronaldinho, just to name a few.

There's a good site describing them, and selling about 60 different varieties.

The second tradition unique to Catalonia is that of the Caga tio.

The Caga tio is a cross between a Christmas log and a Mexican Piñata and comes in many sizes painted with a smiley face and typically standing up on two or four little stick legs. Customs surrounding Caga tio differ, but all agree, Caga tio means "shit log." Here is more or less the Caga tio ritual.

Fifteen days before Christmas, Caga tio makes his appearance in the dining room, where he must be fed at least once every day. He likes oranges, crackers and sweet wine. In some families, Caga tio starts small, but grows as the days progress toward Christmas.

At some point, Caga tio is moved out of the dining room, into the living room, and covered with a blanket to keep him warm. On Christmas Eve, before the traditional Christmas dinner, the kids are sent to their rooms to say three Our Fathers, which gives the elders enough time to stash presents under Caga tio's blanket. After their prayers are done, the kids return to the living room and start beating the poor Caga tio with big sticks. And they sing a song. One version goes "Shit, log, shit! If you don't shit well, we will whack you !" Another goes "Log, log, shit candy! If you don't shit for Christmas, we will whack you once more!"



Shitty Shitting Xmas gifts abound online!

The Catalian version:

"Caga tió,
sinó et donaré un cop de bastó!

Tió de Nadal,
caga torrons
i pixa vi blanc!

Tió de Nadal
caga neules i torrons
i pixa xampany!"

The Spanish version:

"Caga tio
sino te daré un golpe de bastón!

Tío de navidad,
caga turrones,
y mea vino blanco!

Tío de navidad
caga nueces y turrones
y mea champagne!"

(It's me, Peristaltor. After I posted this, I had my sister translate the Spanish, and an anonymous poster provided me with a better translation:)

Shit, log
If you won't I'll beat you with a stick!

Christmas log,
shit torrons (a traditional Spanish Christmas candy)
and piss white wine.

Christmas log,
shit neules (a traditional Christmas wafer) and torrons
and piss champagne (Catalan sparkling wine cava is often referred to as champange in colloquial use).

(Back to the post! -P.)

After the children have gotten their fill of flogging the log, the blanket is removed to determine Caga tio's state of digestion. Typically, a miracle has occurred, and the log has pooped wrapped gifts, which are called "the shits." Often one of the shits will be something weird, like an egg, to let everyone know that it was the last one deposited by Caga tio. . . .

Have fun!

Huh, huh -- "flogging the log." That's "the shits." Huh, huh.

Enjoy yer ritualistic vacations!

Addendum, The Day After Xmas:



From Hitler to Obama to Papa Smurf to Bart Simpson:
A caganer diorama that proves "Everybody Poops."

PZ at Pharyngula notes a great article about who really started the "War" on Christmas. . . and why.

Max Blumenthal traces the counter-assault to some knuckle-dragger named Peter Brimelow. Brimelow notes the "true" scrooges here:

Unlike their more respectable counterparts, Brimelow’s writers dared to name the true anti-Christian Grinch: Jews. The winner of Brimelow’s 2001 War on Christmas competition, a “paleoconservative” writer named Tom Piatak, insisted that those behind the assault on Christmas “evidently prefer” Hanukkah, which he called the “Jewish Kwanzaa,” a “faux-Christmas.” “Teaching children about Hanukkah, rather than the beliefs that actually sustained Jews on their sometimes tragic and tumultuous historical journey,” Piatak fumed, “inculcates negative lessons about Christianity, not positive ones about Judaism.”

To that last sentence I must ask; Really? Celebrating an oil lamp that burned longer than anyone expected somehow points a finger of blame at an upstart cult that follows a dead carpenter? Really?!?

Wow. It's refreshing to note true anti-Semitism for a change.

Update, December 15: PZ at Pharyngula notes that the US House of Representitives has gotten into the act, sponsoring House Resolution 847. Let's read:

H. Res. 847
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
December 11, 2007.
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

(Yup, Emphasis mine once again.)

Most of the Republicans (and 2 Democrats) of the US House of Representatives: Appeasing the fear mongers Keeping the country safe from non-Christians with non-binding resolutions that do absolutely, positively nothing. Follow the Pharyngula link to see exactly who sponsored this banal hysteria!

Another addendum, Xmas Eve: Just to take the seriousness out of the whole issue: