1. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93816 by thelogogryph on December 4, 2007 at 8:59 am

Hm. I'm always surprised by the love people give to Neil Gaiman. As for Tolkien, there was only so much I could read about how much hobbits like food or what fun Tom Bombadil was before I wanted to scream.

China Mieville, John Crowley, Jeff VanderMeer and M John Harrison are about as far as I can go today in the speculative genre.

This might be the geekiest discussion I've had in months. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

2. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93797 by thelogogryph on December 4, 2007 at 8:23 am

AllanW:

I'm a little confused. If you like fantasy/scifi, what contemporary writers are you reading that can actually write better than Pullman? (Again, keeping in mind these were children's book.) I always want to enjoy the genre, but the pedestrian writing makes it hard to love, and there are very few authors whose work I've enjoyed.

3. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93788 by thelogogryph on December 4, 2007 at 8:10 am

Northern Bright & AllanW:

If you have no interest in fantasy or don't want to read a book aimed at children, the series probably wasn't going to do much for you. But I'm a little confused how you'd pick up the books and not realise what you were getting into.

4. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92369 by thelogogryph on November 30, 2007 at 10:59 am

oxytocin:

Canada's not doing as well as you might hope. For instance, a 2007 poll found that 42 percent of Canadians believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, while 21 percent weren't 'sure.' Twenty-two percent believed in young-earth creationism while another 19 percent were undecided.

(See http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16178 )

There's a tendency in Canada to think that these sorts of issues are only being dealt with in the US, but the numbers increasingly cast doubt over that assumption. Several of Stephen Harper's top brass have publicly avowed a disbelief in evolution. It's not inconceivable that just as the Republicans have been able to use 'cultural politics' to prop up their less popular economic and political reforms, Canadian parties will soon be able to carve out a niche for themselves along similar lines. Canadians have to be very cautious about assuming the secular nature of the country is assured for posterity.

As to the article, I'm always surprised at the numbers that come out of the States. I've met many Americans, but very few of them (not even 31 percent) believed in witches or a young earth.

5. Schools should put faith in science

Comment #92040 by thelogogryph on November 29, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Canadians need more articles like this. There's a disturbing tendency for Canadians to pay little attention to their own country, and to assume this sort of shifting of the curriculum and culture only happens in the US. Members of the current federal government in particular have said some fairly disturbing things about basic scientific ideas without encountering much public ire.

6. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92008 by thelogogryph on November 29, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I've got to agree, this is one of Dawkin's poorer articles. He seems to struggle merely to stay on topic throughout, and makes some dubious claims about monogamy.

Several studies that consider monogamy and its alternatives haven't been so kind to the abilities of open-marriages to produce happiness. Several communes in North America collapsed messily in large part because of how difficult these sorts of relationships made everyone involved. Simply put, he doesn't provide a very good analysis of the concerns addressed.

As to Clinton, I would have thought that his many ridiculous policies and actions would have irritated Americans far more than his sex life. The bombing of a Sudanese medicine factory, for instance, stands out in my mind as a shining example of what not to do.

7. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91470 by thelogogryph on November 28, 2007 at 11:58 am

This sounds like it will have a happy ending.

8. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91191 by thelogogryph on November 27, 2007 at 2:32 pm

If a person's faith is relevant to how they would hold office, I think you have to consider it fair game for discussion.

On a separate note, there's a streaming documentary about Mormons (mostly their history, not so much their beliefs) at the link below. It's sad, funny, interesting and a little disturbing. I recommend it, if you have a bit of time to kill.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

9. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #90967 by thelogogryph on November 26, 2007 at 8:39 pm

I'm amazed the teacher didn't realise the name wouldn't go over well when attached to a bear.

I don't say this to justify what's happening - it's absurd, pointless and depressing, without question, and people need to calm down - but, really, wouldn't you tread a bit more carefully in Sudan? I've taught abroad before, and whether you like it or not you try to be aware of the culture and adapt your actions to some extent.

In any case, I'd be very curious to read the reports from Sudan's media. I wonder if they will play this up or try to dilute whatever outrage is building.

10. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90608 by thelogogryph on November 25, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Steve99

A lot of your arguments seem to be that we are misrepresenting what Davies actually means about physical laws and how we accept them. Davies may have a more nuanced version in his other works, at least some of which you seem to have read. However, he doesn't present that in this article. He argues repeatedly that our faith in physical laws – and that is the word he uses, without clarifying that he means it to be defined in some idiosyncratic way – is a problem, one that is 'anti-rational', 'theological' and 'makes a mockery of science.' If he meant something different than that, he didn't say it very well.

I think a good number of the comments posted here (excluding the insults tacked on to them) do a fairly good job of analysing what the article actually says. We aren't all familiar with Davies' body of work, and that may be a problem in comprehending the article, but it's one likely to face many readers, especially when the argument is not clearly presented. To quote Daniel Dennett, "We need to recognize that our words might be misunderstood, and that we are to some degree just as responsible for likely misunderstandings of what we say as we are for the 'proper' effects of our words."

If you have further resources we can explore that better encapsulate Davies' arguments, please provide some links; I'm sure many here would be interested. I'm sure on this particular issue it must feel you like against the cavalry, so it would be nice to get a better idea what everyone means.