Public Understanding Of Science

So, what does the public know about science? Well, if this poll (taken in 2001) is any indicator, both the European (or rather, E.U.) and American publics still have a lot to learn. Also note that at least with regard to the thirteen questions asked in the survey those answering for the E.U. performed more poorly on most of the questions than did the American respondents. For me the question that disturbs me the most is that concerning the nature of our planetary system - that is whether it is heliocentric or not. That the survey produced such large numbers of Americans and Europeans answering that the Sun revolves around the Earth (over 20% and 30% respectively) scares me somewhat.

Leo Strauss & Historicism

Leo Strauss was opposed to historicism. He argued that its development since the Enlightenment was at the base of much what was wrong with modernity. In other words, Strauss argued that there are indeed certain fundamentals and that historicism's focus on the uniqueness of historical periods ignored these fundamentals to society's detriment.

This doesn't make Strauss a "fundamentalist" in any religious sense, or an advocate of orthodoxy. Indeed, he viewed these fundamentals in some ways as impossible to answer questions (e.g., just think of the classic problems which philosophy has faced since its advent). Of course some of these "fundamentals," or the rather immutable aspects of humanity, were indeed "fundamental" in the sense of being notions which were true throughout the ages. His notions on the natural inequality of man is one of these.

Strauss wanted some of these fundamentals hidden, particularly the "fundamental" question of whether we are a special creation or not. It seems that he thought to question this openly amongst non-philosophers was to endanger human society.

While I find the notion of "fundamental questions" to be a fascinating one and one which gets at the crux of a number of issues, I find his outright rejection of historicism to be troubling.

First let us note that Strauss did not reject history as a field of study. Indeed, he found it to be a good way to discover the nature of the "fundamental questions," since history illustrates the difference between the tradition of one culture and other cultures and thus the potential difference between tradition and nature. However, the use of history to justify what one might call historical particularism bothered him.

So what troubles me about Strauss' rejection? Well, it seems to me that up to a point that historicism can be useful as a means to, hmm, "enforce" tolerance. In other words, too much emphasis on "fundamentals" can lead to as much bloodshed as too little focus on it.

Germany's First 20th Century Genocide

Most folks are likely ignorant of Germany's First Genocide - namely the genocide committed in what is Namibia in the first decade of the last century. While local conditions, grievances, etc. had much to do with the violence which erupted at the time, early 20th century race theories also played their part and much of the themes found in the Third Reich's activities in WWII can also be seen in the genocide in Namibia. This includes the same sort of domestic propaganda used against the various non-European peoples in Namibia as was used against Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. Just as in WWII, Germany ran concentration camps in Namibia. Also as in WWII there was an extermination order (though in the case of Namibia it was formally rescinded). Further, as the Jews (and others) under the Third Reich had to wear special identifiers, so elements of Namibia's indigenous population had to wear a tag which was worn around their necks. Finally, individuals involved in the genocide in Namibia were directly involved in the creation of the Nazi party and individuals like Hess, Hitler, Mengele, etc. were directly connected to these people.

Dictator Of The Month

I came across this neat site today which profiles and "scores" various dictators. Er, I guess, enjoy.

Riis Took EPO

1996 Tour de France winner Bjarne Riis, who is now the owner and manager of Team CSC, admitted doping in a Friday press conference at CSC headquarters in Lyngby, just outside Copenhagen. The Dane, who was then riding for Team Telekom, said he took EPO in 1996, the year that he ended Miguel Indurain's five-year Tour de France winning streak.

At this point folks (if they haven't done so already) may start to wonder about anyone who does well at Le Tour.

I realize that some libertarians question the ban on performance enhancing drugs in sports, but I don't. Though I would not advocate the government enforcement of such bans.

Today's Video From Iraq

One of the great things about the personal video recoder age is their use by soldiers in the field. Anyway, check out the reaction of these Marines to I guess a JDAM taking out a building.

John Wayne Speaks!

While Wayne isn't overly specific, I would guess that these remarks by him concern 1960s student radicalism. Make of the video that has been tacked onto the speech what you will.

"The Theists [sic] Nightmare"

Why do men have nipples?

WTF?

In a speech in Brazil last week, the pope sparked controversy by saying that native populations had been “silently longing” for the Christian faith brought to South America by colonizers.

“The proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture,” he said in Brazil.

I'm not quite sure what to chalk these remarks up to. I can say that claiming that you know what people long dead were "silently longing" for, at least in this context (e.g., conversion by force), is at best an arrogant remark. As for the "alienation" and "imposition" remark, well, clearly the Pope is simply ignorant of the events that took place in the Americas following Columbus' voyage. By itself suppressing the worship of the Gods of the indigenous population was an "imposition of a foreign culture."

Perhaps the Pope should read de Las Casas; clearly he needs some sort of education on this particular issue.

The Muppets

YouTube has a nice collection of snippets from various movies, TV shows, etc. made by the the The Muppets.

Boomerang

CRAWFORD, Texas - The White House on Sunday fired back at former President Jimmy Carter, calling him ”increasingly irrelevant” a day after Carter described President Bush’s presidency as the worst in history in international relations.

Whatever the merits of this claim it seems to me that this statement could be easily used to describe the Bush Presidency. Indeed that observation is so obvious one wonders why the White House would have used such language to describe Carter.

Stanley Milgram's Experiment

One can watch some of the footage of the controversial experiment here.

Conformity to authority illustrates a powerful example of the lack of free will or at least the inability to exercise such (for the majority of individuals).

McKinley Claims Two More

JUNEAU, Alaska - Two climbers died after a 1,900-foot fall during a descent of Mount McKinley — North America’s highest mountain — Denali National Park and Reserve officials said Friday.

As an ex-climber (hoping to return to climbing this summer) I have a lot of empathy for the individuals and families involved in these sort of accidents.

Though I've never climbed McKinley I've read enough about it to know that it can be a fairly hazardous mountain to climb, particularly due to weather related issues. The fact that it has claimed a fair number of lives over the years demonstrates this.

To give folks an idea of the difficulties which this mountain presents to a climber note that ascents generally take several weeks (or as long as a month) and that well over half of the ascents are unsuccessful. There are no "dog trails" on McKinley.

Condolences and thoughts to the families, etc.

Intelligent Design

As part of its ad campaign adoptionsf has created the poster seen above. I think that it is very clever myself.

Hat Tip: The Austringer

Odd Day At Landis Hearing

Since most of my readers are likely not following Landis' efforts to challenge the allegations made against him here is a timeline of the events as they have unfolded so far.

I'll be the first to admit that the case as it has so far unfolded is a complex one, especially since I lack the technical knowledge that is in part at the heart of this case. However yesterday's proceedings were colored with a bit of drama. You see, Greg Lemond (who was to testify about a phone call he had with Landis shortly after the A Sample came up positive) "revealed that he [had] received a threatening phone call the night before testifying, allegedly from Landis' business manager Will Geoghegan... ." This link also provides an almost blow by blow account of Lemond's testimony.

So what was the alleged threat? Well this is how CBS describes it:

LeMond wound up disclosing he had been sexually abused as a child, and felt compelled to go public with that after receiving a call Wednesday from Landis' manager, Will Geoghegan, who knew that secret and threatened to reveal it if LeMond showed up to testify.

If the allegation is true, how could Landis' manager have known about this secret? Well, one can draw some interesting conclusions from this particular piece of testimony by Lemond:

He [Lemond] further said he had told Mr. Landis this secret in an effort to encourage him to be truthful. "I shared it with him to show him what keeping a secret would do," LeMond said.

Now I have no idea if the allegation is true; indeed, all Lemond apparently has is a record of a cellphone call by Landis' manager to Lemond. Still, at the very least it adds an interesting twist to this story.

Edit: BTW, this write-up was really posted on May 18th, 2007.