(no subject)
May. 4th, 2005 02:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lapsedmodernistSo check this out the new tactic in the evolution debate
Critics of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of "10 questions to ask your biology teacher."
The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution.
The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based. Others say the increasingly charged atmosphere has simply forced them to work harder to find ways to skirt controversy.
National Center for Science Education addresses these questions here:
Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.
Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.
Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.
Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.
Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!
Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.
Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.
Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.
Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
A: What does Wells mean by "Darwin's theory of evolution"? In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells's "10 Questions" fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists' "misrepresenting the facts."
Also, I gotta say, very smooth, arming the little Jesus Fish Warriors with the questions they obviously wouldn't be capable of articulating themselves. I am sorry, but it's true! I took AP Bio in high school and the only difference between our class and the regular bio class was that we had a grip on the difference between mitosis, meiosis, halitosis and Oslo. And we disected a shark instead of a frog.
I think they should obviously stage an immediate revival of Inherit The Wind in Kansas, but since the particulars of the case of this case, which was won on a technicality , a victory more hollow than the mythology of the American Left would have you believe, are far too sophisicated for our homokulturkampf (and for the original stage adaptation, now that I think about it), I propose that William Jennings Bryan be replaced by Dr. Laura Schlessigner, and the opening statement by the defense (updating Clarence Darrow to Bill Maher) consists of the following questionnaire from Jim:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
And to turn the party in your brain into a full-blown rave please click on this and behold The Synthesis:
(NB to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
apropos: that IS a ghettoblaster, I think)
Critics of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of "10 questions to ask your biology teacher."
The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution.
The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based. Others say the increasingly charged atmosphere has simply forced them to work harder to find ways to skirt controversy.
National Center for Science Education addresses these questions here:
Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.
Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.
Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.
Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.
Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!
Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.
Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.
Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.
Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
A: What does Wells mean by "Darwin's theory of evolution"? In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells's "10 Questions" fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists' "misrepresenting the facts."
Also, I gotta say, very smooth, arming the little Jesus Fish Warriors with the questions they obviously wouldn't be capable of articulating themselves. I am sorry, but it's true! I took AP Bio in high school and the only difference between our class and the regular bio class was that we had a grip on the difference between mitosis, meiosis, halitosis and Oslo. And we disected a shark instead of a frog.
I think they should obviously stage an immediate revival of Inherit The Wind in Kansas, but since the particulars of the case of this case, which was won on a technicality , a victory more hollow than the mythology of the American Left would have you believe, are far too sophisicated for our homokulturkampf (and for the original stage adaptation, now that I think about it), I propose that William Jennings Bryan be replaced by Dr. Laura Schlessigner, and the opening statement by the defense (updating Clarence Darrow to Bill Maher) consists of the following questionnaire from Jim:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
And to turn the party in your brain into a full-blown rave please click on this and behold The Synthesis:
(NB to
apropos: that IS a ghettoblaster, I think)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 07:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 08:16 am (UTC)I mean, I lived there for a year and I know it exists, but I don't remember ever seeing it.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 03:25 pm (UTC)I think it starts up in Ventura, goes east to Burbank, turns south past Glendale and continues more or less straight south to Long Beach.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 04:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 05:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 06:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 08:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 08:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 03:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 03:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 12:00 pm (UTC)Also do you think that Exodus 21:7 (#2) sanctions the paying of a dote for brides to be in Africa? My colleague's family, even though most of them live in Canada, fully expect to pay her parents in Kentucky if he proposes marriage, but I don't know if this is required since technically she won't be a slave.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 12:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 10:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 11:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 02:27 pm (UTC)I really enjoyed the article you posted and the rest of your post. As soon as I read the article I went off on my own little search to find someone who had refuted the 10 questions those kids were asked to give their biology teachers. I found some other great websites that help refute the creationist questions:
An Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html): "This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims." It's very thorough. YOu can tell by just checking out the main page.
Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution and why most of what it teaches about evolution is wrong (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html): Refutes Icons of Evolution (which seems to be a cornerstone in the whole Bad science debate) almost chapter by chapter.
Thank you again for making me feel smarter after reading your posts. Seriously. I love reading your posts because I feel like you educate me on so many things or at least inspire me to go out and educate myself! LOL
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 06:01 pm (UTC)I scanned the article and made it a .jpg if you want to read it.
Here's the link:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v472/ariadnev/public/May2nd/dinosaursforcreationists.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v472/ariadnev/public/May2nd/dinosaursforcreationists.jpg)
Again see how you are inspiring me to be all thoughtful and to make text-to-text connections! *grin*
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 03:22 pm (UTC)Sunday, May 01, 2005
Great Moments in History, 4000 B.C.: God Hides the Dinosaur Bones
"Man, this is gonna be fuckin' hilarious!" says God.
"I dunno God," says me. "I'm not sure I get it."
"No, no, it's gonna be fuckin' fantastic," says God. "'Cause y'see, everybody's gonna think there's dinosaurs, and there's not! That's gold - solid gold!"
"I guess that's funny," says me. "Not really ha ha funny, more like Andy Kaufmann funny."
"Dude, you just don't get it," says God. "Now c'mon, you gotta check out these, these trilobites! Ohmigod! Ohmigod, these're fuckin' classic!"
"I think this is like that time we were out drivin an you got all excited about stealin that 'SALAD BAR' sign over that restaurant," says me.
"Know what, man, I am fuckin' starvin'," says God. "After this we're totally gettin' some tacos."
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 05:02 pm (UTC)The real problem with answering these goobers is that evolution is still a kind of vague study - I mean, we have some pretty good ideas how a lot of stuff works, but there are still some areas in which things are pretty unclear. Instead we should be arguing that creationism is a really stupid idea - which seems obvious to anybody who isn't brought up with it, I think. But it's not hard to cast doubt upon any science, since they're all based upon shaky hypotheses: "how do you know gravity works according to the formula you set out? Haven't tests only been done on the earth, the moon, and the space around them?"
My favorite mindfuck for biblical literalists is "If you do the math, Methuselah was still alive when the flood happened. Was he on the boat and they just forgot to mention him? Or was he just a really good swimmer?"
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 06:16 pm (UTC)On the other hand, maybe the relentless nitpicking forces the textbooks to be better than they would otherwise... Since textbooks in other science subjects are just as rife with horrible mistakes, but no one seems to care.
" turn the party in your brain into a full-blown rave"
Date: 2005-05-04 08:52 pm (UTC)Re: " turn the party in your brain into a full-blown rave"
Date: 2005-05-05 03:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 10:14 pm (UTC)Q: Why are people still dying of starvation and easily-cured disease despite our ability within current means of production to alleviate these problems?
And - only fair - I would like to see the National Center for Science Education have a go these types of questions. It's easy to shore up a fine scientific theory against gibberish criticism, but justify the vile system you're a part of...? "A: Well, kids, we have these things called global capital markets and they convince us we're rational actors..."
OK, so capitalist modernity has its own set of problems and contradictions, no big news here. But I feel religion isn't outmoded so long as it agitates and interrogates about such moral hypocrisies rather than nitpicking at scientific theories and methods. Reminds us that there are other ways of thinking.
(ps. the Synthesis is awesome! Although I think Abel was supposed to have procreated before getting whacked - or else we'd all be vampires and monsters like Grendel who was supposedly 'of the line of Cain'. Do you mind if I refer this post on to a paeleontologist friend of mine?)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 03:54 am (UTC)OK, so capitalist modernity has its own set of problems and contradictions, no big news here. But I feel religion isn't outmoded so long as it agitates and interrogates about such moral hypocrisies rather than nitpicking at scientific theories and methods. Reminds us that there are other ways of thinking.
Sure, that's how you get, for example, Liberation Theology.
I don't think religion is always an opium of the people, at least no more so than any other ideology, but we are talking about a very particular creepy subsection of the fundies who do not interpret the Bible, but rather read it literally.
"A: Well, kids, we have these things called global capital markets and they convince us we're rational actors..."
That IS handled, though, within the academic community, in particular by my discipline. Back when I was studying more "scientific" anthropology several of my colleagues were participating in a McArthur-grant funded project where your textbook economic tests were performed cross-culturally, disproving the "universality" of the "rational actor" thesis not just on philosophical grounds, but using the methods of economists themselves.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 05:14 am (UTC)Heh, I dig it. I should lighten up and stop being such a party pooper!
My visit to New York has been finalised for 23-30th June (Maybe a little longer - hell, I wish I could stay for a month). If you are free and in the area between those dates, let me know. Aforementioned palaeontologist friend has just moved there and scored a job at NYU, so there will be plenty of partying going on. Maybe we should try to cover all the disciplines while we're at it - I have an analytic philosopher in the area as well.
Actually, do you know much about anthropological opinion on toys and temporality? I'm working with Levi-Strauss somewhat on the differential relation between the synchronic tendencies of the sacred objects the diachronic tendencies of play objects. Do you know of any good places to visit in the city apart from the New York Museum of Toys? Can't believe I hvaen't asked you this before...
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 11:30 am (UTC)