1. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272619 by noneoftheabove on October 27, 2008 at 4:35 pm

When we formulate a hypothesis in science, it's based on an underlying causal model for the process we're interested in. We don't test hypotheses empirically unless we think that we have a good reason to believe they're true.

Richard has hypothesised that stories about magic discourage critical thinking in children. It's not entirely clear why he thinks this, but the premise seems to be his perception that in stories about magic, anything can happen. Therefore, hearing such stories might make children think that anything can happen in real life too.

I think Richard's premise is clearly incorrect. Stories about magic are constructed in a rather rigid way, out of narrative necessity. You can't write a good story in a universe where absolutely anything can happen. To be entertained, a reader needs to have her expectations violated; to have expectations, a reader needs to have an internal model of the world. So the writer of fantasy sets up an alternative universe, with different rules from our own, and allows this universe to develop in accordance with its own rules. The beauty of fantasy comes from the dancing interplay of the reader's expectations and the writer's creativity; the writer cannot violate the rules she has prescribed, but she must nonetheless continue to surprise the reader.

From this, it seems likely that reading (good) fantasy should train children in model-building, reasoning and creativity - and in the enjoyment of being surprised - precisely the skills needed by critical-thinking adults. While there isn't direct evidence for this that I'm aware of, in adults at least, interest in fantasy and science fiction is strongly correlated with scientific interest. In my experience, children who begin by reading a lot of fantasy usually go on to enjoy sci-fi as teens and adults.

Perhaps Richard's argument is more subtle than it appears, but if so, that subtlety has not been made clear. On the face of it, I don't see that his hypothesis has the plausibility to justify empirical research.

2. May your god go with you

Comment #271929 by noneoftheabove on October 26, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Zappi,

What is freakish about the idea that it's not okay to harm sentient beings simply to gratify our appetites? The idea that animals don't experience pain and suffering has been thoroughly refuted by science, and there's no question that modern farming techniques are optimized for productivity at the expense of kindness. For most people, there is absolutely no nutritional need to consume animals. Meat-eating is certainly natural to humans - as are rape and murder. Naturalness does not justify anything. Most people feel it's not okay to kick a dog just because we feel like it. If so, how can it be okay to harm other animals for equally trivial reasons?

Is it so freakish that some people feel the persistence of life on our planet is more important than our individual existences? Or that they want to aim for a sustainable state for humanity as a whole?

It's simply untrue that environmentalists don't care about humans. Ethical investment funds, for instance, offer products that are simultaneously socially AND environmentally aware. That's because the markets are the same: the people who put money into eradicating poverty are the same people who put money into sustainability.

And it makes no sense to try to eradicate poverty without considering environmental concerns. For example, it's very clear that the emerging impacts of climate change - deforestation, desertification, flooding, and disease spread, for instance - disproportionately impact people in poorer regions. Vast regions of Africa and China are rapidly turning from arable land into desert, which will soon drive local populations to war as food supplies vanish. The Ganges river - on which most of India's population depends - is drying up due to overuse and lack of meltwater from the warming Himalayas. In the Pacific, whole countries are disappearing beneath the waves. Each of these events stands to cause human suffering on an unprecedented scale. Environmentalists seek a way to live on earth where this will never happen again.

Having values is not the same as having faith. Being an atheist does not mean abandoning ideals or compassion, and the fact that somebody believes in a different set of ideals from your own, does not make them freakish, delusional, or mad.

3. Have We Ever Faced An Enemy More Stupid Than Muslim Terrorists?

Comment #247003 by noneoftheabove on September 13, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Enjoyable article. Frightening people is a very effective way to control them - so both terrorists and governments exaggerate the threat of terrorists. Laughter is an antidote to fear, so I'm very glad to see people starting to mock Islam and terrorists.

However, the idea that Islamic terrorists are stupid is factually incorrect. Male terrorists, in general, are of above average intelligence, educated, middle-class individuals who are genuinely embittered and blame Western society. They are, in a sense, political idealists. Female terrorists are different. They are low-status women, often infertile, and/or rejected by their husbands and families. For them, terrorism is a way to restore their honour with their immediate families.

From these observations alone, it should be evident that Islamic terrorism will only be stopped when Muslim men cease blaming the West for their problems, and Muslim women become empowered. This was known long before 9/11. So it's interesting that our governments promptly responded by invading Islamic nations, visibly slaughtering thousands of people, exacerbating poverty, and generally making a gigantic mess. Any Muslim man who didn't blame the West for his problems previously, now has a bunch of excellent reasons to do so - and probably a lot more problems as well. The general move towards religious extremism - a very natural response under the circumstances - works directly against empowering women. In short: there are now a lot more motivated terrorists than ever before, precisely because of the actions chosen by Western governments.

Nobody involved is stupid, so one has to ask: what were they really trying to do?

4. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194067 by noneoftheabove on June 16, 2008 at 11:32 am

Three points.

1. correlation != causation

So we know now that gay people have brain features like those of the other sex. What does that tell us?

Does having a brain like the other sex make you gay? Or does some hormonal or developmental factor contribute independently to both homosexuality and having a brain like the other sex? Or do people whose brains are naturally more like those of the other sex tend to find themselves in social situations that lead them to grow up gay?

This study can't tell you. Not that it isn't an interesting result. But the inferences made are crude and political rather than scientific.

2. People need to get over the whole "nature-versus-nurture" dichotomy.

All development happens in the context of environment, in the egg, in utero, or after birth. So of course homosexuality is biologically determined - at least in the same sense that language, culture, relationships and personalities are. The interesting scientific question is how the whole system of human sexuality develops in its social, neural and hormonal context. This is NOT aided by politically colored interpretations of evidence, no matter how well-meaning.

3. The "nature" versus "nurture" question should be irrelevant from the perspective of political activism.

If being gay is fine, then the reasons for it might be interesting, but they don't matter. It's only if you hold the a priori belief that homosexuality is a defect that its causes matter morally. Then it becomes either a disorder to be medically treated or a choice to be disparaged. Neither position is respectful of gays.

Celebrate diversity. And fine, be interested in its sources if you're curious. But don't buy into the game of arguing about causation with homophobes, because they're either going to pity you or despise you. They're not going to respect you, whatever the outcome of the debate.

The fact is, the thought of homosexuality makes some people uncomfortable, and they want to rationalize that. Sadly, the easiest way to do that is to look down on the group that makes them uncomfortable. On the up side, most heterosexuals these days are worldly enough to be comfortable with gays, or are at least reflective enough to realize that their discomfort is their own problem. So you're not losing much by avoiding the demographic that lacks those qualities.

5. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #184759 by noneoftheabove on May 26, 2008 at 6:00 am

Bullet: "then explain this huzon : why is it still called the THEORY of evolution???"

mordacious1: "Read a book other than the bible and you might learn something."

Darwin's badger: "Bullet, are you a troll or just really ignorant?"

Bullet: "Alright, I get your point now. I just needed to read it in that context. Sorry."

mordacious1: "everytime one of these morons tell me that evolution is a theory, I suggest we throw their kid off a 10 story building."

Bullet: "I promise you, im not lying. My problem is, Im fourteen years old man. Im still trying to figure things out for myself. Basically, Im getting my facts straight, but theres still a lot that I dont understand... If Ive said anything that is in fact a lie, than im sorry."

moderndaythomas: "Bullet, Bullet, Bullet, Bullet, Bullet.
... jump off a ten story building... eat a nice steaming pile of dog sh*t. I had asterixed out the "i" so as not to damage your nice christian boy sensibilities."

Verylee: "Oh yes, he must be. He certainly has the mind of a fourteen year old, and not a day older...just read through his posts!"

Mitchell Gilks: "Read a book, and learn not to assert things you don't know to be true. That is speaking untruths, and... you have no grounds for being excused from lying."

Aoclay: "bravo, mitchell."

esuther: "Hey Bullet. Come on back. No one's gonna hurt you."

Yeah, right.

Well done, guys. I hope you're proud of yourselves for beating up that 14-year-old. How heroic of you. You taught him some really useful lessons. Like, that when he asks questions, he gets taunted for his ignorance, told to jump off a ten-story building or go eat dog sh*t. Nice job! He had the guts to come and talk to you guys politely and hear your viewpoint, even though everyone he respects probably told him you were the lying spawn of Satan. Looks like you succeeded in chasing him away, but I'm sure he went away feeling that at least part of what he'd been taught has been thoroughly confirmed: the atheist community are cruel, arrogant, childish and stupid. That's how I feel reading this thread. And I'm an atheist and an evolutionary biologist.

Take a serious look at yourselves.