Showing posts with label History and Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History and Science. Show all posts

Saturday, December 26, 2015

A Merry Christmas from Maximilien Robespierre (with a side-note on that Newton business)

From the vaults via last year's Tumblr post:


Understandably enough, we tend to think of December 25 primarily as Christmas, thereby ignoring or forgetting other events that occurred on that date. Among the latter is the birthday of Isaac Newton (1642).

Neil deGrasse Tyson caused a stink this year when he made what he thought was a witty tweet about this coincidence and aroused the ire of some who thought he was anti-Christian. In fact, he was doing nothing new or particularly clever: advocates of science have for some years promoted celebration of the 25th as Newton’s birthday as a light-hearted way of increasing awareness of scientific knowledge.

I always honor the birthday of the scientific revolutionary Newton, but also the occasion of a major address by the political revolutionary Robespierre.

read the rest


Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Q: Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? A: Often, near Samoa


We are all familiar with the dramatic scenes of the fiery takeoffs of US space vehicles. We are arguably somewhat less familiar with the landings, though I'd wager many of us have seen a space shuttle landing on television.

And before that? Those of us of a certain age can probably remember both ends of the launch cycle very well. When we were kids, before these things became routine, they were broadcast live on the major television networks (nowadays, only on CNN and the like). In fact, teachers would wheel a portable television into classrooms so that students could watch history being made. Again, the blastoff was probably the main attraction.

And the landings? From the Mercury through the Apollo program, they took place on water, giving rise to the term, "splashdown." For a variety of complicated, partly contingent reasons, the USSR always opted for recovery of its space vehicles on land, whereas the US chose water landings.

So here are some philatelic artifacts of the Apollo program.

The splashdown of Apollo 11, like other Apollo landings, took place in the Pacific Ocean, most near American Samoa. This stamp from Western Samoa commemorates the moon landings. (The depiction of the space suit is not accurate.) [kickstarter project to restore and display Neil Armstrong's space suit]


Another Western Samoa stamp with the same image but a higher denomination is used on this commemorative cover marking the safe return of Apollo 16, the second-to-last manned moon mission.



For those of you not around at the time, here's what these splashdowns looked like:



As for the title of this post? It, too, is a historical artifact:
  • (a) either something someone of a certain age knows and fondly recalls, or
  • (b) something one picked up while exploring retro culture, or
  • (c) something one does not know but really should.
It's a great satirical song by the great Tom Lehrer, bitterly poking fun at Wernher von Braun. Again, those of us of a certain age remember the latter as a perennial talking head whenever the US space program was in the news (including Walt Disney productions, before my time). Snapped up at the end of World War II by "Operation Paperclip," in which the US sought to grab German rocket scientists before the Soviets could do so, von Braun went from designing Nazi V-2 rockets used in terror attacks against London to becoming the father of the US space program without skipping a beat. Hence this little ditty. And so, without further ado:





[restored video]

The Moon Landing in the Service of Advertising, Anno 1969

I always thought this was a very clever advertising strategy.

(enlarge)
Back in 1969, when the Apollo 11 moon landing took place, Spoo & Son, a well-established Madison, Wisconsin clothing store on Capitol Square, had the clever idea of purchasing a whole load of first-day-of-issue covers of the commemorative stamp for use in promoting its big fall sale. The custom cachet, with the words, “in celebration of a great event,” in white against the image of the moon, thus appropriated the glory of the technological achievement in the service of commerce.

It had a sufficiently light touch to be amusing, and the prospective customer got a nice keepsake.


Moon Landing Anniversary (and animation, space toilets, and cheese)

If it's July 20, it's time to haul out my old post, which combines lunar exploration, zero-gravity toilets, animation humor, and the Jeffersonian politics of cheese.

But I also realized that the old posts did not include any images directly related to the moon landing, so I will redress that omission with the Apollo moon landing stamp.



Sunday, July 31, 2011

Up, up, and away: The Birth of the Air Force in the Civil War

What does the space shuttle have to do with the Civil War? Well, the connection is tenuous, but it's there.

When we think of the Civil War, we think of many innovations in the science of warfare, from Gatling guns to ironclads and submarines. Aviation may not come first to mind, but as the Library of Congress (LOC) and Smithsonian Institution remind us, it, too, belongs on the list.

150 years ago, on June 18, 1861, Thaddeus Lowe made a balloon ascent in Washington, DC. to demonstrate the usefulness of balloons for observation and intelligence-gathering. On July 25, President Lincoln sent a note to the Union Commander, "Will Lieut. Gen. Scott please see Professor Lowe once more about his balloon?" In October, Lincoln created the Union Army Balloon Corps.

Writing for the  "Inside Adams" science and technology blog of the LOC, Jennifer Harbster explains that this was was "the first official use of aviation in American military operations." In other words: Civil War aviation was the origin of the US Army Air Corps and Air Force. In honor of this 150th anniversary, she put together a bibliography of Civil War Aeronautics, which nicely supplements the existing LC Tracer Bullet: Balloons and Airships.

This past June, the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution held a conference and staged a reenactment of that historic flight:


“'We think it is really neat that an event of importance in the history of flight in America took place on the Mall just a few hundred feet in front of the present location of the museum, a building dedicated to the past, present and future of flight in America,” said Tom Crouch, a senior curator at the museum and the man in charge of coordinating the event."


Up, up, and away: but with what? from where?

As is often the case, there are charming or intriguing anecdotes, not all of which, for better or worse, turn out to be true. For example, it is commonly said that because one of the first Confederate balloons launched at Richmond was made of multicolored silk, the fabric had been donated by the patriotic local ladies from their own wardrobes.  In fact, as the US Centennial of Flight Commission tells us, "Although the 'Silk Dress Balloon' was constructed from dress silk, no actual dresses were sacrificed." (further: here)

Myth busted. That was fairly easy. In other cases, it's hard to get to the truth, or even the origins of the legend.

My favorite Civil War aeronautical anecdote dates back to my childhood. I grew up learning that Count Zeppelin made his first balloon ascent while stationed as an observer with Union troops at Fort Snelling , Minnesota, a historic site and military base that I knew well as a child. I was fascinated to think that the origin of the great airships lay in the hinterlands of our country during the Civil War.


And the truth? I dealt with this while discussing the anniversary of the first flight of the Graf Zeppelin to the US. Read on.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

April Fools Us (but spring is nonetheless here)

I was excited by the arrival of spring weather and sentiments even before the formal onset of the season. Indeed, in the first week or March, it seemed that spring was, de facto, if not de jure, here.

The first harbinger was the arrival of the eagerly awaited garden catalogue from Andrew's Greenhouse, which arrived at the start of March.



It was followed, in short order, by the appearance of daffodils and crocuses.

7 March
17 March
I hoped too soon, of course, for April again proved to be the cruelest month (or at least, to play the cruelest meteorological jokes on us.

1 April

1 April

1 April
Of course, this will no doubt increase our seasonal and chronic misery by feeding the fantasies of climate-change-denying loons, who are unable to distinguish between weather and climate. On the bright side: they are wrong. And: people on all sides of the climate debate could welcome the return of warm and pleasant weather.

What a difference a day makes.  By Saturday, the snow had disappeared, the sun was shining, and the temperature rose above 50 degrees F, the perfect circumstances under which to launch the "Poems Around Town" program of the Emily Dickinson Big Read 2011.

Monday, December 27, 2010

New US Polling Results on Evolution: What Do They Mean?

• Nearly eighty percent of Americans believe God played a role in the development of the human species.
• More than fifty percent of Americans believe in evolution.
• Only sixteen percent of Americans really understand and believe in evolution.

All of these are reasonable interpretations of the latest Gallup poll on American attitudes toward evolution, which, incidentally, have not markedly changed in the last generation.

Is the glass half-empty or half-full? Well, that may depend on how desperate you are for good news.

Gallup headlined its report with the negative, but put a sugar cube at the bottom of the bitter cup of tea, i.e. in the subtitle:
Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism
Belief in evolutionary origins of humans slowly rising, however
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement. (full story, with numbers and graphs)
By contrast, veteran skeptic Michael Shermer simply tweeted his satisfaction, "New Gallup poll shows acceptance of evolution increasing!" and cited a post by the National Center for Science Education, which had likewise led with the positive. Maybe that was because he had also just rejoiced at the fifth anniversary of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education case, which had dealt a blow to the attempt to sneak cretinism creationism through the back door of the schools by teaching "intelligent design."

The increase is indeed slight: up from 14 percent in 2008 (the low was 9 percent in 1982 and 1999, the average, just over 11 percent from 1982 through 2007). Maybe I'm just an inveterate pessimist, but—stop to think about this—we're still at 16 percent!. For me, the poll reveals the sobering truth that only about one in six Americans believes in the universally acknowledged scientific explanation for the development of life on our planet. Rejecting the "theory of evolution" is only slightly less scary than rejecting the "theory of gravitation."  (Maybe I should have said the glass was only one-sixth full.)

That forty percent of Americans reject the most basic evidence of the archaeological (not to mention, fossil and astrophysical) record is astounding but no longer surprising, if I may put it that way. After all, 79 percent of us believe in miracles, and 62 percent believe in the devil.

Over at Archaeology magazine, scholars are debating (and rejecting) the thesis that a comet's collision with the earth caused mass extinctions—and the disappearance of the early human "Clovis culture" (named for the site in New Mexico where distinctive and sophisticated stone tools were found).  That happened 12,900 years ago. According to nearly half of our population, then, these sophisticated ancestors cannot have existed. And what about all the whack jobs (regularly featured on the History Channel, alas), who insist on the existence of a great, amazingly sophisticated, vanished civilization—so utterly vanished, in fact, that it left behind not a document and not a pot shard, in short, not any of the usual material traces of a civilization—and instead (how, then ??) only the message for posterity that it had been, well, really smart and really special. The adherents all claim that this mysterious disappearing act took place around 12,000 years ago. Even this crackpot theory would seem to become an impossibility for believers in recent human origins.The question, then, is: are we dealing with the same nuts, or is this a case of mixed nuts?

Personally, I was most intrigued by the statistic that "Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms." It's not surprising. The mockery of all but the most unforgiving and self-congratulatory atheists notwithstanding, it is well known that large numbers of religious people in the west believe in evolution in the sense that they acknowledge some of its key premises, at least as concerns starting assumptions and consequences:  a very ancient earth and the development of more complex life forms—including humans (this is crucial)—from simpler ones. The Papacy accepts this (1, 2). The Chief Rabbi of England accepts this (1, 2). Mainstream American Protestant theologians accept this.

The question is: is that really belief in evolution?  Strictly speaking (which should be the only manner of speaking about science): no, or at least, not necessarily.  Evolution is an entirely natural process, requiring and allowing no supernatural intervention. The essence is the appearance and preservation of advantageous chance mutations. Chance and nature are the key: the changes occur by chance, and on the genetic level (this is the mechanism that Darwin could not yet explain).  Useful changes are retained in the evolutionary process to the extent that they render the possessor more adaptable, better able to survive.

Unfortunately, we'd really need to drill down deeper than the questions allow. It all really depends on what "guided" means.  There are two possibilities. If the thirty-eight percent really believe that "God guided" the process of evolution from the start in any meaningful sense, such as "intelligent design," or intervened at any point, then that's just hogwash from a scientific point of view (and not even theologically justifiable in some cases). If, by contrast, these respondents in effect adopt something closer to a deist position whereby a supreme being set the processes of natural law in motion at the start of time and thereafter refrained from meddling (again: without any specific intended outcome), then that's somewhat different. Science cannot really address that possibility, for evolution is more concerned with the processes, mechanisms, and results.  A concept of God as merely first cause would, in theory, allow for the scientific process of evolution to unfold. Whether such a notion is scientifically tenable, and what a God confined to that domain would imply for many traditional religions, those are another matter.

So, whether the 38 percent are closer to the 40 percent or the 16 percent is the key question: Do 78 percent of Americans reject or fail to understand evolution? (coincidentally or otherwise, a figure close to that of the 82 percent that believe in God) Or can we instead say that 54 percent of Americans accept evolution?

Bottom line:  We have overcome some of our deepest societal barriers and taboos. We have elected a black president.  We have (in Massachusetts and a few other states) recognized the full range of gay rights, including marriage (42 percent of Americans now accept it). We have, most recently, eliminated discrimination against gays in the military (77 percent of Americans support that). And yet, we shy away from embracing the simple, overwhelmingly demonstrated, objective truths of nature and science.

Interesting.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

How Rigorous Are Anthropology and Physics? Hard to Know

What makes a doctrine or field "scientific"?
Writing in Scientific American, John Horgan observes:
"Two recent science stories, one in anthropology and the other in physics, have me wondering which field is "hard" and which "soft.""
The logic:
1) The American Anthropological Association drops "science" from mission statement, whereupon some members protested.
2) In the meantime, physics, once that "hardest" of disciplines, whose mathematical foundations have since Newton defined what it means to be "scientific," becomes ever more speculative, venturing "beyond the bounds of measurable reality," as evidenced by the recent debate over colliding black holes as the source of the cosmic background radiation.
Much food for thought in a brief piece.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, December 18, 2010

17 December 1903/1935: Two Dates When Aviation Changed the World (with some thoughts on the Wright Bros., the DC-3, and the personal computer)

Today is the anniversary of the date in 1903 when the Wright brothers famously changed history with "the first powered, controlled, sustained flight" (note:  all the adjectives are important) at Kitty Hawk.

For the occasion, NASA offers a beautiful image of the 1999 replica in a wind tunnel, where the flight characteristics of the craft were analyzed:


As the repository of the nation's collective memory, the Library of Congress gives us a photo of the historic event itself:

We feature a December 17, 1903 photograph of the first powered, controlled, sustained flight by the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Orville Wright is seen at the controls of the machine, while Wilbur Wright, running alongside to balance the airplane, has just released his hold on the forward upright of the right wing. This image from a glass plate negative is but one of some 200 Wright Brothers Negatives which document their successes and failures with their new flying machines. The collection also contains individual portraits and group pictures of the Wright brothers and their family and friends, as well as photos of their homes, other buildings, towns, and landscapes.
The 1903 event is the sort of thing that shows up on every calendar of major historical anniversaries.  Less well known, but hardly less consequential is what happened on that date in 1935. Today is the 107th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' historic flight, but it's also the 75th anniversary of the introduction of the DC-3.

Over at Wired, Autopia provides a handsome tribute to what it rightly calls the machine "largely seen as the airplane to popularize air travel" and "perhaps the best known military transport ever."


The US military ordered over 10,000 of the planes, which (under C-47 and other designations) were the workhorses of World War II but continued to serve as transports and specially modified gunships down through the Vietnam era. In fact, approximately 400 are said to be still in service around the world for purposes ranging from combat to fire-fighting and commuter travel.

To give you an idea of just how significant this aircraft was, think of it in relation to the personal computer (the analogy is meant to be suggestive rather than ruthlessly rigorous).  The DC-3 appeared in 1935, only 32 years after the Wright Brothers' famous flight, and although it was in production for only 11 years, until 1946, it remained in wide use for at least a generation after that.

As chance would have it, just as the last DC-3 was coming off the production line, the computer, stimulated by wartime needs, was really taking off with the announcement of ENIAC, "the first general-purpose electronic computer, in 1946, and the invention of the transistor in 1947.  Some three decades after that figurative "Wright Brothers moment" in computing, we find the breakthroughs to the consumer market—the equivalent of the "DC-3 moment": the founding of Microsoft (1975) and Apple (1976), and the launch of the early personal computers—the Commodore PET 2001, the Apple II, and the Radio Shack TRS-80 (in 1977)—and the development of Intel's 8086 processor (1978).  Those early consumer computers had all of 4 kB RAM.  That's right, no typo: 4, not 40 or 400. (see, e.g., 1, 2, 3)  Now, imagine that those Commodore PET 2001's and Apple II's were still in widespread use at the start of the twenty-first century, and you'd have a sense of the endurance and influence of the DC-3.

As best I can recall, it was in a DC-3 that I, as a child, made my first airplane flight. These planes were so good, so rugged, so reliable, that they were still used on some regional passenger routes down to the 1970s.  Didn't seem like anything special back then.  Now I know better.  Better late than never.  That's one of the advantages of history.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, October 30, 2010

30 October 1938: Orson Welles's "War of the Worlds" Broadcast

On this day in 1938, enfant terrible Orson Welles and his Mercury Theatre on the Air made their now-infamous broadcast of an adaptation of H. G. Wells's War of the Worlds.  As is well known, the program presented the story in the form of an emergency news report, leading some listeners (especially those who tuned in late) to conclude that the Earth was actually under invasion by Martians.

Scholars generally agree that many of the popularly accepted stories of mass panic are urban legends or at least exaggerations, demanding critical scrutiny and hard proof.  Still, there was something to them, and it was always entertaining to speculate and investigate.

According to the radio broadcast, the Martian landing took place at Grover's Mill, NJ—now Princeton Junction—which, at the time of the sixtieth anniversary, in 1998, erected a monument to the event.  I recall that, when I used to shop at a wonderful old bookstore in nearby Cranbury, NJ (coincidentally, from the standpoint of historic preservation, "the best preserved 19th century village in Middlesex County"), residents would point to the water tower and tell me that this was one of the "aliens" that frightened residents had shot at on that fateful night.  True?   That depends on the question that one asks. According to more credible reports, it was a different water tower altogether. And, as noted, many such reports were simply spurious. But from the standpoint of the cultural historian, the interesting thing is not just what happened, but what people think happened, and why. To that extent, the myth or legend itself acquires the status of historical subject.


The script and audio (e.g. 1, 2) of the broadcast are now available online.  Happy Halloween!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, October 21, 2010

21 October 1797: Launching of USS Constitution; the need for preservation and interpretation continues


 Mass Moments notes that, on this day
...in 1797, USS Constitution was launched in Boston. It took three attempts to set the immense ship, reinforced with heavy diagonal planking and copper sheathing, afloat. Shipyard officials warned townspeople to be prepared for a great wave when the boat was finally launched, but none appeared. Her greatest moment came during the War of 1812, when in less than 20 minutes her guns turned a British warship into a hulk, not worth towing to port. When British cannonballs appeared to bounce off her thick wooden hull, a sailor exclaimed, "Huzzah, her sides are made of iron!" Ever since, people have referred to the ship by her affectionate nickname "Old Ironsides." Berthed at the Boston Navy Yard, she is the oldest commissioned warship in the world.
(read the rest)
This year, the Globe reports, the "Constitution," which attracts half a million visitors annually, made one of its brief forays (typically, 6-8 per year since the restoration) into Boston harbor and "fired a 21-gun salute off Castle Island and then a 17-gun salute off Boston's Coast Guard station, which was the site of the former Edmund Hartt shipyard, where the ship was built and then launched on Oct. 21, 1797."

As the Mass Moments entry notes, the unusual reinforcement of the ship accounted for its strength but also made it difficult to maneuver at launch.  And possessing the strength of "Ironsides" did not necessarily mean longer effective life.  The piece goes on to explain that "In 1830 the Navy declared that Constitution was no longer seaworthy and recommended that she be scrapped." Thanks not least to a popular poem by Oliver Wendell Holmes that celebrated the ship that year, the public protested, and Congress appropriated funds for repairs, but there were to be three more threats of destruction, and three more reprieves.  A major four-year restoration took place on the eve of the 200th anniversary celebrations in 1997. Another round of repairs began in 2007.

It's an interesting case to contemplate for a variety of reasons. To begin with, one could classify this as one of the earliest historic preservation efforts in the nation, antedating the commonly accepted starting point—the formation of the Mount Vernon Ladies Association in 1853—by a generation.  There are in addition the enduring technical challenges, particularly when it comes to working with old wood and massive timbers (see this fascinating article from American Forests; incidentally, I'm proud to say that the University of Wisconsin Forest Products Laboratory, familiar to me since my childhood, played a major role in the last major restoration).  Finally, in the case of structures so subject to decay and deterioration, there is the conceptual or philosophical problem of "the same axe twice," as the old joke or anecdote goes (if you change the handle three times and the head twice, is it really the same tool?).  How much is original?  According to the Naval History and Heritage Command Detachment Boston, approximately "10 to 15 percent of the ship’s fabric is composed of timber installed between 1795 and 1797."  One offshoot of the process of deterioration and restoration has been the market for discarded materials. The 1927-31 restoration was financed in part by the selling of such souvenirs.  The tradition of course is older.  Pieces from the timbers or sheathing of old Royal Navy ships, whether hulks or preserved—Nelson's "Victory" is probably the best example—have been marketed at least since the nineteenth century. I myself have a couple of such items in my collection.  All in all, then, the "Constitution" wonderfully embodies the theoretical and practical aspectts of preservation.

And the need for interpretation as well as preservation continues (otherwise: why preserve?).  The USS Constitution Museum recently announced that it is seeking "an energetic, enthusiastic intern to assist in the development of a Museum/Public Libraries outreach program" (application details). Always nice to see my interest in historic preservation and books and libraries combined.

Speaking of documentation and public history:  In the meantime, inland Whitehall, NY, the official birthplace of the US Navy (who knew? bonus points: the date is Oct. 13, 1775) finds its historic claim challenged by Providence, R.I., and three Massachusetts locales:  Beverly, Marblehead, and the "Constitution"'s home of Boston.  A meeting at the Constitution Museum on the anniversary of the Navy's birth, organized by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero (a Marblehead native whose wife is from Beverly), took up the vexed question.  He explained that the real purpose was educational rather than juridical:
Ferriero set his staff researching the Navy's origins shortly after he was appointed the archivist last year. Curiosity about the competing claims to his hometown's title was one reason, he said, but he added the real purpose is not to settle the argument. Rather it's to use the good-natured debate to send a message about the archives: "These are your records, you should be using them, we provide access to them and there are all kinds of stories to be told from the records of your government," Ferriero said.
To end the suspense: the title remains both officially unchanged and popularly disputed.  When Ferriero put the five choices to an unofficial voice vote, the audience sent up "huzzuh"s in equal volume for Marblehead and Beverly. And so, advocates of local history keep the struggle, like the "Constitution" itself, alive.


Resources:

USS Constitution Museum
• Boston Navy Yard (map; National Park Service site)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Coming Attractions: this Sunday, on National Geographic, "and Man created Dog"

 Just a heads-up on a new program about the human role in the evolution of the dog.

Here, an excerpt:




It runs Sunday evening at 9 p.m.

More later, perhaps.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Credo quia absurdum (2): Karen Armstrong Gets Her Comeuppance

I was beginning to despair and think that I was the only literate person who found Karen Armstrong banal, dreary, and vacuous. Well, thankfully, some intrepid bloggers came to my rescue this month. (That's one of the nice things about the internet.)

First, Shiraz Socialist complained, in the exquisitely entitled, "Karen Armstrong: liar or idiot?":
The easy ride that ex-nun and ecumenical apologist for religion, Karen Armstrong, receives in the “liberal”/”left” press (New Statesman, Graun, etc), never ceases to amaze me. Below is an exception: John Crace’s concise demolition of her book “The Case For God,” in The Graun: [the latter, for the uninitiated, is the increasingly ludicrous Guardian; JW]
The piece then goes on to reproduce the review, a few choice passages from which I will excerpt:
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart make Dawkins and Hitchens burn in Hell, O Lord my Rock and my Redeemer. Amen.

Much of what we say about God these days is facile. The concept of God is meant to be hard. Too often we get lost in what Greeks called logos (reason) rather than interpreting him through mythoi - those things we know to be eternally true but can't prove. Like Santa Claus. Religion is not about belief or faith; it is a skill. Self-deceit does not always come easily, so we have to work at it.

Our ancestors, who were obviously right, would have been surprised by the crude empiricism that reduces faith to fundamentalism or atheism. I have no intention of rubbishing anyone's beliefs, so help me God, but Dawkins's critique of God is unbelievably shallow. God is transcendent, clever clogs. So we obviously can't understand him. Duh!

I'm going to spend the next 250 pages on a quick trawl of comparative religion from the pre-modern to the present day. It won't help make the case for God, but it will make me look clever and keep the publishers happy, so let's hope no one notices!
. . . .

The modern drift to atheism has been balanced by an equally lamentable rise in fundamentalism. Both beliefs are compromised and misconceived. The only logical position is apophatic relativism, as stated in the Jeff Beck (1887- ) lyric, "You're everywhere and nowhere, Baby. That's where you're at."

I haven't had time to deal with the tricky issues of the after-life that some who believe in God seem to think are fairly important.

But silence is often the best policy - geddit, Hitchens? And the lesson of my historical overview is that the only tenable religious belief is one where you have the humility to constantly change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

God is the desire beyond this desire, who exists because I say so, and the negation of whose existence confirms his transcendence. Or something like that.

And if you believe this, you'll believe anything.
The next day, PZ Meyers (already gratefully cited as a source of the announcement for the science poetry contest), implicitly picking up the liar/idiot theme, trashed a book that Karen Armstrong had praised, thus in effect killing two birds with one (kidney?) stone:
The last time I got a glimpse of the wretched new book from Marilynne Robinson, the review was sufficient to dissuade me from bothering to ever read it. Now we have a positive review from Karen Armstrong, and I am now convinced that if ever I am confronted with this work, the only appropriate response would be to unzip my fly and piss on it, on the spot. Only my deeply ingrained social conditioning would hinder me. Dammit, why can't I live freely and express my primal impulses without these nagging voices in my head?

Once again, her thesis is that her own twisted version of science, which is always reductionist and ignores the forest for the hadrons, baryons, and mesons that make it up, is a curse upon civilization that destroys all beauty and aspirations. How dare we turn a critical eye upon good ol' subjective superstition? And besides, science completely ignores the mind and art and strangeness and doesn't encourage people to ever think long, long thoughts.

How's your bladder holding up?

This, of course, is entirely copacetic with Karen Armstrong's views. It isn't civilized if it isn't wallowing in the subjective and whining piteously about all those investigators of the real with their bright lights and poking fingers harshing her mellow and demanding that she say something sensible, clear, and objectively verifiable. In order to make her complaints justifiable, though, she has to lie about science. Oh, wait — perhaps I should be more charitable. She is obstinately ignorant of science, so she isn't exactly lying…she just makes fantastic nonsense up about it.
(read the rest; he even quotes her inane drivel)
I'd be the first person to admit that Dawkins (a great scientist) and Hitchens (a great essayist and provocateur) are anything but subtle and often less than sophisticated in their reasoning when they talk about religion.  They are quite capable of giving atheism a bad name.  Still, when one looks at their opponents. . .

One Michael Billington (again, in the Grauniad. See what Shiraz Socialist means?) further illustrates the point:
In the book world a fierce debate rages between polemical atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and eloquent champions of faith like Karen Armstrong. Yet, for the most part, the theatre steers clear of religion or, as with Pautz's play, sidesteps big questions. Where is the modern equivalent of Brecht's Galileo, which pits science against religion? Or of Shaw's Saint Joan, which both puts the case for its heroine's direct access to God and explains the need for her political extinction? No one can write masterpieces to order. But since we are confronted by the tensions in organised religion and the vacuum created by unalloyed materialism, isn't it time faith made a comeback as a fit subject for drama?
First of all, anyone who calls Karen Armstrong eloquent is not fit to be taken seriously (vide supra). Second, note the bias in the language: advocates of superstition are "eloquent," but their critics are merely "polemical." There are "tensions" in religion but a "vacuum" created by materialism.  What if it's the other way around—in both cases? And what about that slick elision?  Maybe "faith"—since when has religion been relegated to that narrow pen? now who's a reductionist, and an ethnocentric one, at that?—just isn't quite the compelling problem that it was in the 1920s or the 1940s. But to understand that would require a sense of history—and reality.   We do need Brecht, though his play cannot be reduced to that puerile dichotomy. It's a living and compelling work because it is also about the responsibility of science and the politics of dissent, but the Grauniad essayist wouldn't understand this. We don't necessarily need more plays about religion. If we did, presumably someone would write them.  We are surrounded by superfluity: 500 channels and nothing to watch, and hundreds of flavors of shampoo when a dozen would do.

I recently had a conversation with an acquaintance who is deeply religious.  Worrying that, ages ago, when he was young, he had perhaps allowed his personal views to intrude ever so slightly upon his duties as a teacher, he castigated himself for an ethical failure that he described in traditional theological terms as the sin of "thievery," i.e. receiving pay for his work but not fully living up to his obligations.  It was a statement infinitely more profound and religious than anything the Karen Armstrongs of the world will ever write.

So, you see, this is not about opposition to religion.  On the contrary:  Religion is sometimes too important to be left to clerics and people who natter on about "spirituality."
Enhanced by Zemanta

Credo quia absurdum? More bad science: Der Spiegel denounces the homeopathy hoax

From the sublime to the ridiculous, poetry to poison.  One of those topics one just loves to hate.

I've always been fascinated (in a horrified sort of way) by the European gullibility concerning "alternative medicine."  Such products, for both good and ill, are more readily available there, and are part of the accepted training of physicians and pharmacists.  Now, I know the issue should not be caricatured; let's make that clear.  Many "traditional" medicines and practices have proven to have value.  (As I've pointed out before, quoting Steven Novella, herbal drugs are "are, after all, just pharmaceuticals in unpurified plant form.") "Many of the more "scientific" ones have drawbacks ranging from side-effects to expense.  And in the US, the combined policies of the big pharmaceutical companies and the stringent testing requirements of the Food and Drug Administration often seem to stifle innovation or slow the adoption of new products.  No argument there.  But here's the thing:  any "alternative" medicine or medical practice that can demonstrate its efficacy and safety will in principle eventually win the seal of approval.  Most "alternative" medicines in fact cannot, and their adherents don't care—and that's the distinction defining the chasm between science and bullshit.

One of the ironies of this system (as I have likewise noted) is that medicines, and food products that have not yet been proven to cause any harm (such as irradiated meat and genetically modified foods), are strictly regulated, whereas the world of alternative medicines is totally unregulated:  so-called "health food" or "whole food" stores can sell practically any concoction—some of which are useless, and others of which are downright harmful—as "supplements" provided they make no definitive claims about health benefits. It is insane. Still, it's our way of life, and there is a method to this madness: that nostrums proliferate is regrettable, but this is not a totalitarian society, and the main thing is that the boundaries of medicine are strictly enforced.  As the blogger PalMD puts it:
There is no "alternative" to medicine. There is simply that which can be shown to work, and that which cannot. The humane application of what we know is the art of medicine. The humane application of alternative medicine is quackery with a smile.
Europe is insane, and in an illogical way.  The worst quackery of all is homeopathy. It's a plague on both sides of the Atlantic, but particularly over there.  I am always amazed when I talk to otherwise highly educated people who swear by it.  People who evince a healthy skepticism or scarcely concealed scorn for "traditional religion" show no such hesitation when it comes to this unsubstantiated doctrines that likewise rests on faith alone.  We know—because we can prove—that homeopathy is a fraud. We have no way of proving religion to be true or false.  Maybe that should be a new marketing slogan: "Homeopathy: it's more dangerous than organized religion!"  Oooh: Transgressive!

I noticed the cover story on the German edition of Der Spiegel right away, but it took a while before it appeared on the English-language web site, and then I got distracted. At any rate, as the title—Alternative Medicine or Witchcraft? Europeans Cast Critical Eye on Homeopathy—suggests, it's well worth the read.  The story begins by recounting a dramatic gesture of protest:
It was the kind of humor that the British love. In several cities across the country, mostly young crowds marched into their local branches of the drug store Boots. Each purchased a small bottle of the homeopathic remedy Arsenicum album, which is used in the treatment of anxiety and food poisoning.

At 10 a.m., they all opened their bottles, full of remedy globules. One man wearing a hat shouted out that he was sacrificing himself for the sake of science. On command, the entire crowd began swallowing the globules -- not two or three of the small pills, but the entire bottles. "Mmm, delicious," some said. Others just laughed.

But nothing happened. And that was exactly what the demonstrators had hoped to prove. Not a single member of the "Overdose" Campaign documented on the website www.1023.org.uk, was poisoned or injured in any way.

The campaign had been organized by a network of British homeopathy skeptics. "We wanted to show that homeopathic globules contain absolutely nothing but sugar," said co-organizer Simon Singh, a former BBC journalist and author of the book "Trick or Treatment," which has become the standard of critical books on the use of alternative medicines.
Of course, the Spiegel gets it wrong here on two counts:

1) As I have noted before in these pages, Belgian skeptics actually did this years ago (life imitates art? maybe it's like the Agatha Christie mysteries in which the British police have to learn from Hercule Poirot). We have to cut the authors some slack, though. As an entirely foreign phenomenon, humor has never been the German strong suit, so they probably just think of it as "typically" British.

2) Also, the event took place at 10:23 a.m., not 10:00. This is not a quibble, or at the least, it is relevant. 1023.org actually alludes to the superscripted 10 to the 23rd power, as in Avogadro's constant (remember your high school or college chemistry?), 6.022 x 1023, referring to "the number of "elementary entities" (usually atoms or molecules) in one mole, that is (from the definition of the mole), the number of atoms in exactly 12 grams of carbon-12" of a given substance. That is crucial here.

Homeopathy, as the Spiegel goes on skillfully to explain, is based on two nutty principles: the law of similars and the principle of dilution (even the names are stupid).  The first holds:
the cause of a symptom should also be treated with the cause. When treating someone, a homeopath considers which substance would cause the same symptoms in a healthy person. Arsenicum album, for example, which the activists in the campaign tried to overdose on, should in theory cause restlessness and nausea in a healthy person. But in an ill person, it is supposed to heal exactly these symptoms.
Dumb and baseless.  Still, the second is, if possible, even stupider:
The more a medical ingredient is diluted and shaken, the stronger its effect will be -- at least that's the assumption. But most homeopathic substances are so strongly diluted that molecules of the active ingredient can no longer be traced. Homeopaths still believe in the effects because they are convinced the water has a "memory."
Scientists shake their head in disbelief, for here's where Avogadro's constant comes in, as this graphic makes shockingly clear.


In other words, they're selling you very expensive water.

That's really all you need to know. 

The estimable Bob Park has been pointing this out for years (though nowadays he has to spend a lot of his time fighting the idiotic belief that cell phones cause brain cancer).

Still, read the rest. It's well worth it. There, you will see that sales of homeopathic remedies in Germany have risen from 148 to 267.8 million Euros (an increase of 81%) since 1993, and the number of German doctors with additional homeopathic training has reached 421,686: an increase of 203 percent over the same period.

Stupidity is tragic.  Duping people out of their money is tragic. Giving them false hope and perhaps shortening their lives by duping them out of their money is criminal.  And the larger tragedy, of course, is that, even as our modern welfare states are facing an unprecedented fiscal crisis driven in part by rising health care costs, societies are squandering precious resources on these frauds.

Bottom line: If you believe in homeopathy, you believe in a doctrine that violates the fundamental laws of chemistry and physics, and that's pretty scary. Do what you want to yourself, if you must, but I sure hope you are not preparing my food or designing my car.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

A Tale of Three Poetry Contests (hmmm . . . what rhymes with Jerusalem, entropy, and free trade?)

I know it is often said that poetry is hot again, so perhaps I should not be surprised at the appearance of several poetry competitions reaching well beyond the usual circles.


• The first is the more expected, socially engaged in an uplifting way (is there any other?):
Galway’s literary events organisation, Over The Edge, is looking for poems from poets worldwide on any aspect of the Israel-Palestine issue. The poems can be from any point of view. The only criteria being that they must work as poems and be in some way relevant to what has been happening in that part of the world.

We also welcome poems from those living in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank on any aspect of life as it is lived there.

We will publish the poems as part of a special feature on the Over The Edge website.

The title of the project Will Days Indeed Come: I Come From There is borrowed from the titles of two poems: Will Days Indeed Come by Leah Goldberg and I Come From There by Mahmoud Darwish.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES: Poems should be e-mailed, both in the body of the e-mail and as an attachment to over-the-edge-openreadings@hotmail.com Poets should also simultaneously send a bio of no more than thirty words in the same format.  [h.t.: Harry's Place]
In the talkbacks, the organizers assure the curious and skeptical that they really do welcome all points of view.  It's easy to imagine how a topic such as this could generate all sorts of propaganda, so it's good to see the insistence that this be real poetry and not just activism in weak verse. (Heinrich Heine taught us that lesson more than 150 years ago, but some have yet to learn it.)

I suppose any starting point for such a contest would be that infamous old couplet:
How odd of God
To choose the Jews
Hard to be more concise and provocative than that.


• The second competition is a bit less conventional:
A Poetry Contest for science nerds

Category: Art
Posted on: July 25, 2010 2:11 PM, by PZ Myers

Dr Charles is having a Poetry Contest, with wonderful prizes to be awarded to the winner with the best poem about "experiencing, practicing, or reflecting upon a medical, scientific, or health-related matter."

It sounds great until you realize you're probably going to have to compete against the Cuttlefish.

• The third really rather takes one by surprise. 
INVITATION TO TAKE PART IN THE POETRY COMPETITION “THE WTO: A VISION IN VERSE”
Test your poetic skills in a competition organized in the context of the WTO Open Day on 19 September 2010. Put pen to paper and craft a poem on the WTO or international trade. Those of you who feel more at home with music can try your hand at a rap or slam poem. The competition is open to one and all. (details)
(h.t.: OD)
(That's: World Trade Organization, in case you didn't know.)

One's first reaction has to be: Is this a joke?  Second:  Are they really desperate, ow what?

As Shakespeare sighed in Sonnet 100:
Where art thou Muse that thou forget'st so long,
To speak of that which gives thee all thy might?
Spend'st thou thy fury on some worthless song,
Darkening thy power to lend base subjects light?
As for science verse,  I imagine the result as something like the "Square Root of 3" poem from "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay":
I’m sure that I will always be
A lonely number like root three

The three is all that’s good and right,
Why must my three keep out of sight
Beneath the vicious square root sign,
I wish instead I were a nine

For nine could thwart this evil trick,
with just some quick arithmetic

I know I’ll never see the sun, as 1.7321
Such is my reality, a sad irrationality

When hark! What is this I see,
Another square root of a three

As quietly co-waltzing by,
Together now we multiply
To form a number we prefer,
Rejoicing as an integer

We break free from our mortal bonds
With the wave of magic wands

Our square root signs become unglued
Your love for me has been renewed
(YouTube won't let us embed the code for his one, but you can view the clip here)

And then, there's that Cuttlefish guy again.

In all honesty, though there's more out there than you'd imagine.  My favorite recent science poem actually combines my love of science and book history.  It's a collaboration between poet Brad Leithauser (of neighboring Mount Holyoke College) and his brother Mark (an artist and curator at the National Gallery), published by the incomparable David Godine.

The opening poem of Lettered Creatures is entitled, "Alphabets:  A Greeting":
It seems we're each a sort of book—
  As scientists now say—
Composed in the four-letter alphabet
  Of our DNA;
Or call it a book-with-printing-press,
  Since we share the common fate
Of going out of print unless
  We manage to duplicate.
(It appears that Nature's Imperative
  Consists of one rule only: Live.)

So what does it mean—that we are books?
  Perhaps that you and I
(Along with the Mouse, the Moose, the Muskrat,
  Spider and Hangingfly,
The Ground Sloth and the bounding Gazelle,
  The neighbor
s ungodly Dog,
Some mite-sized Creature in a shell
  Under a fallen log,
The Eagle and the Bottom Feeder)
  Are each a writer and a reader.
Top that one, I dare you.

In point of fact, though, there is an honored tradition of science poetry, going back at least to Lucretius. Not all of it is great, but there was a time when science writing was not dry and technical and approached the lyrical, and when poets found the truths of science aesthetically compelling.

Who, for example, could forget Pope's immortal:
Nature and nature's laws lay hid in Night.
God said, 'Let Newton be!' and all was light"
or Voltaire's poem on the Lisbon Earthquake?

Of course, astronomy has perhaps always had a special appeal, though science here sometimes becomes an excuse to leave the analytical world of classroom and laboratory and return to unadulterated nature (old theme), as in Whitman's
WHEN I HEARD THE LEARN'D ASTRONOMER

When I heard the learn'd astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired, and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.
Speaking of Whitman and astronomy, Jay Adler recently called our attention to Whitman's striking "Year of Meteors" (1859-60), in which he combines his assessment of the natural and social worlds, linking the great meteor to the abortive rebellion of John Brown. An excerpt:
Year of comets and meteors transient and strange!—lo!
  even here, one equally transient and strange!
As I flit through you hastily, soon to fall and be gone, what is this book,
What am I myself but one of your meteors?
At first sight, it's a bit hard to see how the WTO poems could compete with products from the other contests, but we should not be too quick to dismiss the possibilities.  Bernard Mandeville's Fable of the Bees (1714) is a foundational text of capitalism.  Shakespeare, as is well known, is replete with references to the power of money, though that's only one reason that Karl Marx, who described his "favourite occupation" as "Book-worming," so admired him and drew upon his images and metaphors.  And, once you start to poke around, you can find economic references everywhere in the lyrical realm, from Swift's "The Run Upon the Bankers" (pretty obvious) to Shelley's "Queen Mab" (less so) and Allen Ginsberg's  "American Change" and Howard Nemerov's "Money: an introductory lecture" (on the "Indian Head Nickel" of yore). We don't even need to mention Ezra Pounds's fulminations on usury.

Coming up with poems on international trade could be a bit tougher, but I'll start you off with Schiller's "The Merchant" (1796), set in Classical Antiquity:
Der Kaufmann
Wohin segelt das Schiff? Es trägt Sidonische Männer,
Die von dem frierenden Nord bringen den Bernstein, das Zinn.
Trag’ es gnädig, Neptun, und wiegt es schonend, ihr Winde,
In bewirthender Bucht rausch’ ihm ein trinkbarer Quell.
Euch gehört der Kaufmann, ihr Götter. Er steuert nach Gütern,
Aber, geknüpft an sein Schiff, folget das Gute ihm nach.
And, more recently (1936), Carl Sandburg, portraying economic competition as tragic rather than heroic (the difference between those two ages), observed:
Money is power: so said one.
Money is a cushion: so said another.
Mnoney is the root of evil:  so said still another.
Money means freedom: so runs an old saying.

And money is all of these—and more.
Money pays for whatever you want—if you have the money.
Money buys food, slothes, houses, land, guns, jewels, women, women, time to be lazy and listen to music.
Money buys everything except love, personality, freedom, immortality, silence, peace.

Therefore men fight for money.
Therefore men steal, kill, swindle, walk as hypocrites and whited sepulchers.
Therfore men speak softly carrying plans, poisons, weapons, each in the design:  The words of his mouth were as butter but war was in his heart.

Therefore nations lay strangle holds on each other; bombardments open, tanks advance, salient ares seized, aviators walk on air; truckloads of amputated arms and legs are hauled away.

Money is power, freedom, a cushion, the root of all evil, the sum of blessings.
Probably not exactly what the WTO wants to hear, but you get the idea. Now, off you go:  write!


Wait: I almost forgot two crucial details.  The WTO poems must be:

• limited to 110 words:
now where did that number come from? Admittedly, you can fit in many a decent sonnet. Shakespeare's # 100 happens to contain 111 words.  Close, but no cigar.  And Kumar's lyrical masterpiece weighs in at a chunky 127.  Bummer, dude!  I guess there's always the rap song to shoot for.

• and written in Engiish, French, or Spanish.  Seems a wee bit ethnocentric to me.  Let's just forget the land of Dante, Goethe, and Pushkin—not to mention much of the "Third World." (Is that revealing, or what?)

Robert Frost managed to write poems about both astronomy and economics—separately, of course.

Come to think of it, though, it should be possible to come up with a poem that one could submit to all three contests:  say, about Israeli-Palestinian cooperation on wind turbines or green building.  Or perhaps an encomium to those two technocrats, Salam Fayyad and Shimon Peres.  Maybe the possibilities really are endless. (oh, yeah:  except that you couldn't use Arabic or Hebrew, of course)


In the case of all the contests, just two reminders:

1) In the eighteenth century—that greatest of eras, populated by more great intellects than any before or since—almost every author tried his hand at poetry, but much of it was garbage.  Being smart doesn't make you poetic.

2) Everyone can try to be a poet, but as the saying goes, "everyone is a critic."

So, write boldly, but carry a big stick.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, July 25, 2010

iPhone GIS app—plus great new web interface for Amherst mapping

There's a new iPhone app that lets you access the world of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and is already getting good reviews.

GIS-Administrator Mike Olkin of our own Town IT Department, who draws our attention to the above, has also helpfully put up links to both aerial and property maps for our own area. You can see his impressively convenient and useful multi-base local map (web-accessible, requires no special software) here.
Enhanced by Zemanta