Comments by CrimsonRick

Comment #212161 by CrimsonRick on July 16, 2008 at 6:03 pm

I wasn't sure what the article was going to be about but I can definitely see where they're coming from.

I've really always called it Evolutionary Biology. I think the reason a lot of people may use the term "Darwinism" is that most people know what you're talking about right away (although it does bring up some negative connotations to religious people I'm sure). I think if you just said "evolutionary biology", unfortunately there would be a lot of blank stares.

2. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208860 by CrimsonRick on July 11, 2008 at 10:20 am

I just e-mailed and will later mail this response:

"Friday, July 11, 2008

Dear Mr. Bruininks,

I was disturbed to hear recent news about an effort to have Prof. Myers fired from your university due to some comments he made on a blog that angered members of the Catholic Church.

I sincerely hope that you do not consider Prof. Myers' removal as a realistic or positive solution to appease the complaints and outcries you have received.

I understand that the Catholic League will attempt to persuade you by claiming that Prof. Myers' blog violated the university's code of conduct as well as local, state, and federal laws, by posting what they feel are offensive comments on a page that can be accessed through the faculty page. Please keep in mind that above all the Constitution guarantees free speech, regardless of how unpopular or offensive it might seem to certain sections of the population. Not to mention that these individuals would also be the same that would find offensive a reference on your university's website endorsing evolution as the most probable explanation for the current state of our natural world and human lives.

I am certain that you have by now heard about the death threats to Prof. Myers as well as to the student he referred to in his blog posting. A small, though very vocal, group of people is trying to frighten and intimidate you and others using threats of real violence as well as threats to their livelihoods and careers. The young man who initially removed a wafer from the church, to educate a friend regarding his religion's practices and customs no less, returned it but has since been ostracized and threatened. Prof. Myers' post was a reaction to this ignorant and violent response by "good Christian people" to an innocent action. It is my sincere belief that Prof. Myers' was trying to educate the readers of his post and webpage by providing commentary and counterexamples to highlight the gross overreaction and close-mindedness of these people. This in turn has gotten yet another gross overreaction that you are now experiencing. Were Prof. Myers' comments and criticisms of the Catholic beliefs and response negative and insensitive? Yes. However, they were just that, comments and criticisms, as opposed to the very real threats of violence he was criticizing and is now receiving for his beliefs, or lack thereof.

I believe, and would hope, that the purpose of your institution is to provide education, understanding, and a forum for discourse and debate on all areas and ideas that affect the human experience. Removing Prof. Myers would only result in a victory for ignorance, bigotry, and the belief that if someone disagrees with you or says something you do not like or find offensive, then they should be stripped of their livelihood, ostracized, and even killed.

Very sincerely and respectfully,
"

3. Teaching Evolution in Mexico: Preaching to the Choir

Comment #206747 by CrimsonRick on July 8, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I'm glad to hear that my former countrymen are not creationists. I left Mexico when I was 12 so I never got to hear these debates when I was living there. But I agree that my experience was more secular and religion never entered into my schools (public or private). I learned the basics of evolution early on without any kind of "alternative theories." I wonder if the reason for all this is that Catholicism and some remnants of native religious (polytheistic/sun worship kind of ideas) co-existed, and do so to this day in some areas, so that people understood that some believe in feathered snakes while others believe in Jesus, but they're just beliefs.

4. Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?

Comment #206482 by CrimsonRick on July 8, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Getting my degree in psychology I had to come across these studies several times so I wanted to answer some questions posted above.

1. "Why is it unethical to make people think they're delivering shocks to someone?" A lot of the footage from the experiments show that people did show genuine distress and discomfort because they thought they were actually delivering shocks and potentially hurting people, even if they were told that the responsibility lay with the experimenter, they knew they were still cooperating. If someone coerced you into hurting someone else, wouldn't you feel the least bit distressed? Also, some of the details and names from the experiments were released to the local media and some of these people were ostricized as being cold-hearted or willing to hurt others. As a result of this and the prison experiment, it's impossible to do a study where people feel unecessary stress or pain.

2. Someone brought up the idea of different authority figures. The study was actually replicated in many different manners, for example having the subject/actor in the same room, even having the test subject have to hold down the other person in order to deliver the shock, and even with animals and each of the studies showed that a fair amount of the subjects continued. They also found that if the experimenter was wearing a lab coat and was more official/scientific looking or sounding, people were more willing to go along because they perceived them as more authoritative and knowledgeable as opposed to someone in plain clothes like an assistant.

Along these lines, men and women reacted differently, with women being more willing to delivery higher shocks or go all the way, and this is most likely because in that time period, women felt much more of an authority from male authority figures compared to men interacting with male authority figures. Women felt even more pressure to continue.

3. The prison study being flawed - Most studies are actually flawed and all the flaws pointed out (Self-selection, experimenter being involved, no controls, etc) definitely make this an easy-to-pick-apart study that you can't draw many conclusions from but it does illustrate some interesting points. One of the main reasons it's discussed today is because it shows that people will often "act" in such a way that they feel they are required to or expected to act. Like the guy labeled "John Wayne" who admitted to pretending to be like a movie character because he thought he should be tough. It's brought up the notion of prison staff in general possibly believing they should act like prison guards in movies and TV and be more strict. Not every subject acting as a prison guard felt this expectation and that's why you saw differences in their behavior.

5. The $10,000-a-Month Psychic

Comment #200846 by CrimsonRick on June 28, 2008 at 10:19 am

Along with "intuitive" or "mentalist", how about the other terms in mainstream America like "scam artist" and "swindler."

"Though she admits her teenager can be psychically distracting as well: "I don't want to see what he did with that girl until 2 a.m.," she says. "But I can.""

So can anyone looking at the protein residue in his shorts dummy.

6. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197223 by CrimsonRick on June 21, 2008 at 11:51 am

I agree that the article is too short and doesn't go into a lot of things they should.

At the very least they should provide a quotable statement along the lines of this showing that self-sacrifice and altruism can be a genetic trait that can be passed down.

Provides another argument against the "without God there is no reason to be altruistic" point.

7. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189555 by CrimsonRick on June 6, 2008 at 1:26 pm

It's been a while since astrophysics and I was also struggling with that "something out of nothing" idea until someone brought up that known fact about matter and antimatter particles appearing briefly before annihilating each other. Is the universe just a larger version of that where a cold, empty part of a parent universe spawned our universe through a big bang? What is the anti version of it then? Is there a negative universe floating out there that could annihilate ours at any moment? Could that dark energy (I think that's what it is) that could pull the universe into the Big Crunch be that negative or opposite of our visible universe? Even though I think it makes up most of it. Still very exciting stuff.