Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • What is a Level Playing Field?

    According to the New York Times, Dr. Richard Dawkins “withered” when confronted with questions in the screening of expelled:

    Mr. Mathis said in an interview that he had confronted Dr. Dawkins in the question and answer period after the screening and that Dr. Dawkins withered. “These people who own the academic establishment and who have great friends in the media — they are not accustomed to having a level, open playing field,” Mr. Mathis said. “I watched a man who has been a large figure, an imposing figure, I watched this man shrink in front of my eyes.”

    Check this post on The Panda’s Thumb for some more comments on the development of this story. It appears that “spin” in this case has involved some very creative retelling. Did security miss Dr. Dawkins? Did they let him in intentionally? Inquiring minds may find themselves challenged by the large number of alternate stories. Personally I suspect that they missed Dawkins (while recognizing PZ Myers) as was initially reported, then thought it would look better to have intentionally allowed him in. That is just an opinion, however.

    What is most revealing about this quote, however, is what Mathis must regard as a “level, open playing field.” As I commented in in an earlier post there is a child’s view of fairness that involves each person winning the same number of times, irrespective of skill. Normally, as people mature, they replace this with the idea that the playing field should be the same for all, but that the “best” person (most skilled, prepared, determined, etc.) should win.

    (more…)

  • Expelled! Humor

    This is simply too funny. Put down your coffee. Chew and swallow whatever food you may have put in your mouth.

    OK. Ready. Go read this post on Panda’s Thumb.

    [Don’t read on until you’ve read the linked post.]

    I’ve been amused at the way the producers have been promoting Expelled!, annoyed by the way the tricked interviewees when they were producing it, and appalled by some of the things reported by reviewers. It looks like one of those movies that make me glad I have dedicated friends who will watch and report. My blood pressure won’t tolerate the watching!

    I do note the “alternate” story provided in the comments, in which I put about as much faith as I do in the producers of this movie.

    But now we have incompetent expelling . . . this is just too much fun.

  • NOTHING Ends on Friday

    I want to recommend my wife’s encouraging Good Friday post NOTHING Ends on Friday. Sometimes we see holy week just as a commemoration of the past, but there are life lessons here as well.

  • Convincing Yourself of Falsehood

    . . . or perhaps of less than complete truth.

    Some years ago when I was in the Air Force I had a roommate who was an excellent software engineer. At the time I was a serious hobbyist programmer, so occasionally we would work together on projects. I remember a case in which he had a routine that would work when run under the debugger but would hang when run normally. After checking all the options either of us could think of, he could not conceive of any reason why it would do so.

    At this point, being more ignorant, and thus less certain that all the bases were covered, I suggested putting a delay into the routine at that point (I believe we used something like 1/100th of a second eventually). He didn’t want to do it at first, largely because it would solve the problem (if it worked) without actually discovering what the real problem was. Finally he did try it, it worked, and he released the code in that form, because he never did find anything.

    Now the point isn’t that I was a better programmer; I wasn’t. It’s not that I was more clever; I’m not. It’s simply that, lacking the ability to check off all the boxes I had to try some considerably less logical options, one of which worked.

    It’s very easy to convince ourselves that we have covered all the bases on a subject, or that the evidence for something we believe in very fervently is much stronger than it is. In fact, I suspect that the single most common reason why people accept a particular piece of evidence as reliable is that it supports a conclusion they like.

    I mention this because of a discussion about lying in science and other matters. Larry B made an interesting comment here, and expanded on it over at Quintessence of Dust.

    This all reminded me about a comment a political science professor once made to me when discussing conspiracy theories. “Never attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by human stupidity.” I think he got that from someone else, but I’m not sure who. After reconsidering all this material, I might just paraphrase that to “Never attribute to lying any statement that can be explained by stupidity and/or the overwhelming desire to believe.”

    Perhaps Dr. Matheson’s term “folk science” is the best term after all.

  • Updating my Bible Version Selection Tool

    I have made two major changes to my Bible Version Selection Tool. The first is a new domain. It is now at MyBibleVersion.com. When I found that domain name available, I couldn’t resist paying the few dollars it cost to get it.

    Second, I’ve created a simplified version. The new page has drop down box that gives profiles by which to sort and score the version list. These are Neutral (simple list), Public Reading, Personal Study, Easy Reading, Literal, and Dynamic. To the right is a checkbox that allows you to bring up the old 11 item questionnaire. If you both choose and profile and check the “Detail” box, you will get the default answers from that profile for the 11 questions as a starting point.

    Remember that the lists of versions are inevitably a little loose. For example, is the NKJV, the ESV, or the NASB closer to the formal equivalent extreme? It depends on precisely where you check it.

    Besides the technical changes, the page is now optimized for an 800 x 600 screen rather than 640 x 480. I believe more people now have the wider screens, and this allows me to make the large amount of information presented more readable.

    Please check it out and let me know of any errors or glitches. I’ll be testing it a good deal more myself, but there’s nothing like comments from others to help perfect a new page like this.

    In the near future I will be creating a feed so that this material can be used on other web pages. Tentatively I’m going to use RSS, though it isn’t precisely designed for this. It does everything I need, and some other publishing/sharing protocols seem to be way more complex than I need.

    This new page is unde

  • Frank Schaeffer on Dr. Wright

    Frank Schaeffer has produced some stir with his notes supporting Barack Obama, and now he has written something about the imbalance between the response to Dr. Wright’s comments and the response to those of his, Schaeffer’s, father. He says:

    When Senator Obama’s preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

    I’m not going to try to make comparisons. But I would note that there are moments when many, many preachers have pointed to “God’s curse on America” for some moral failing or other. The question just seems to be who’s the pointer and who’s the pointee.

    I’m guessing a number of folks on the right are a bit annoyed with Frank Schaeffer at the moment!

    HT: Dispatches

  • Christian Carnival #CCXVI

    . . . has been posted at Crossroads.

  • Evidence that Demands a Kingdom

    Thomas an excellent post on Everyday Liturgy, titled Evidence that Demands a Kingdom. This is part of a series, all of which have been good, but this one struck me most forcefully so far. Go, read it, and check out the links to the rest of the series.

  • Distress, Lies, and Christlikeness

    I follow Dr. Steve Matheson’s blog Quintessence of Dust very closely, because as I have read what he posts I have found that he has a high level of integrity, and also provides an extremely high density of information in carefully chosen words. Recently he has been posting on the topic of just how one refers to false statements from people who ought to know better.

    I appreciate the attention he has been giving this issue, because non-specialists have no choice but to trust the integrity of credentialed scientists, at least in the basic data they present. Interpretation is always a different matter.

    Today he has a post On folk science and lies: Back to the basics, in which he digs further into this topic. It’s partially a response to this post by a colleague of his at Calvin College, Kevin Corcoran. Both posts are well worth reading. I provide the second link for those who may not follow all the links, but might I recommend you read this second post when you get to it’s link in Steve’s post? He provides a nice break point so that you can read the second post in context.

    I made the following comment, which I’m reposting here, again for the benefit of those who won’t follow the links:

    I think you are doing a good job with a difficult topic. The problem is in determining the nature of a statement and the intent of the author. Perhaps that should lead us to call statements “false” rather than “lies.”

    I still have a concern here, however. Remember I come at this from a different direction. I’m a Bible teacher and writer at the popular level. I try to communicate things that I study from more serious scholars. At one time I thought I could basically trust information from RtB, even where I might disagree with conclusions.

    What I hear from people in the classes and seminars I offer is that they are getting their information from Christian sources, and specifically from Christian sources who claim strong scientific credentials. These same sources are directly or indirectly accusing the vast majority of the scientific community of a conspiracy to deceive. Because of the claim to be Christian and scientifically credentialed, these non-specialists accept their claims.

    Hugh Ross falls into that category of trust. I can name any number of people with whom I work who will accept his statements or statements of his associates simply because of his reputation. What responsibility does that place on him? Is there a point where a qualified Christian expert (such as you, Steve), should call him on what he is doing?

    It’s not so much the word “lie,” though I continue to have difficulty understanding how a biologist could say certain things that have been quoted here on your blog unintentionally. At a minimum they seem to me to involve negligence.

    I take blog posts here, or books by Christian authors whose integrity I have no reason to doubt, and quote the counter-statements. Not being a specialist (it’s not written in Greek or Hebrew!), it’s hard for me to judge.

    But from my non-expert’s point of view, that’s what makes the issue of integrity so extremely important. Integrity doesn’t mean always being right, but it does mean being careful, presenting the truth as best one knows it, and acknowledging errors when they are pointed out.

    As I have been on the wrong end of some very unChristlike comments, and unfortunately I’ve been guilty of some myself, I’m very conscious of that issue as well. If we can be very, very clear as to what is reliable and what is not without going any further than necessary in making personal accusations, that would be ideal.

    I very much appreciate your efforts in this area. If you determine you’ve deviated from the path you set for yourself, you have also clearly demonstrated a willingness to be corrected and to acknowledge errors. All of that gives evidence of your personal and professional integrity.

    I remain uncomfortable with this topic, but I regard it as of great importance. I’ll be interested in any comments made here or there.

  • Obama Speech Transcript

    It’s available here. This is for all you other people like me who prefer to read something that long.