Snow!

It doesn’t happen here very often this early in the season, but it’s currently snowing! See this artist’s rendition:

 

(Artist’s rendition may not be 100% accurate.)

This isn’t prairie winter, mind you: this is Washington area snow, the kind where even a quarter-inch is enough to close schools and send panicked citizens scurrying to buy up all remaining supplies of milk and toilet paper. There’ll be mile-long backups on the Beltway before this is over.

I’m glad to be sitting quietly in a warm office, and I think I’ll make some hot chocolate. Later, when it dies down, though… comes dealing with traffic, and morons who won’t go above 20 mph even though they’ve lived here all their life and it snows at least once every single year. At least it isn’t sticking to the roads.

(Yes, I’m gently poking fun at PZ. Pompous Minesotan. Who does he think he is, lording it over us with his weather?)

The Crossword War on Christianity

If you thought Bill Donohue’s knickers were in enough of a twist over The Golden Compass to tourniquet a combat battalion, think again:

Many fans of crosswords look forward to tackling the New York Times’ Sunday issue. Several enthusiasts contacted the Catholic League, however, to report that they were troubled by a question in yesterday’s puzzle. The work, titled “Putting on Some Weight,” featured several answers that contained the word “ton.” For instance, the clue “I’m not interested in having tea!” led to the answer, “DON’T GIVE ME ANY LIPTON.”

Puns are standard fare for crossword puzzles, but one example from yesterday’s game is a little too cute. The clue for Number 98 across asked “Crucifix?” The corresponding answer was “SEXTON SYMBOL.” Surely the authors of the puzzle, and the editors of the New York Times, would do well to avoid such cheekiness when it comes to the figure of Christ crucified.

I’d love to meet him sometime. There could be so much fun to be had in pushing his buttons.

Teach the (Other) Controversy!

External Delivery the Future

The theory of external delivery holds that certain features of how Christmas presents are delivered each year are best explained by an external source, not an internal source such as your parents.

Dinesh D’Souza, Mental Mosquito

I propose a new unit of measurement: a megaScoville shall henceforth be known as a D’Souza, because the stupid, it burns!

Here’s the first part of a debate between Daniel Dennett and Dinesh D’Souza at Tufts University:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4&rel=1]

(Follow the “More From:” link to get parts 2-15.)

I warn you, though: you may need to make a SAN roll. Not only does he have the gall to say to Dennett’s face that consciousness can never be understood by mere humans, he then proceeds to use—I kid you not—Pascal’s Wager.

Read More

Is Ungrammatical Text Really Harder to Read?

I’m in the middle of Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works. He talks about experiments in which subjects are shown letters in random orientations, and have to figure out whether the letters are mirror-flipped or not. What was found was that people have to mentally rotate the letters they see, so that they’re right-side-up, at which point they can tell whether the letters are mirror-reversed or not. This rotation takes time.

I wonder if similar work has been done with respect to words and text. It seems that when I’m reading text with a lot of typos, or 1337-speak, or poor punctuation, or inappropriate homonyms (e.g., “who’s” when it should say “whose”), it takes me longer to read than to read text with proper sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling. I wonder whether this is just an illusion, or whether it actually takes more mental work to read the text as written and translate it into proper English.

Reality Can Be Mean

GMAFB:

DUNDEE UNIVERSITY has been accused of “antagonising Christians” with a forthcoming Christmas lecture that challenges one of the central tenets of the faith.

Second-year dental student Emily Mackie said the university’s decision to call its inaugural Dundee Christmas Lecture “Why Evolution is Right … and Creationism is Wrong” is badly timed and insensitive to Christians.

The article shows a photo of Mackie holding a ticket to the lecture. Since she’s a dentist in training, maybe she can go and tell the lecturer how wisdom teeth are evidence of God’s design.

(HT Jesus and Mo.)

I Don’t Get Creationist Humor

Over at the “playground” section of the Expelled site, there’s a video of a can-can where the dancers’ heads have been replaced by those of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Eugenie Scott, Sam Harris, and Charles Darwin. This was made with a tool at JibJab that allows you to replace people’s heads in videos they provide.

As humor goes, IMHO it’s on a par with Mad-libs, so I’m somewhat surprised to see it on the website of a serious creationist movie like Expelled. Unless, of course, it’s being marketed to people who think “Oh yeah?! Well you’re French!” is a biting intellectual retort.

I’d HT Chez Dembski, except that that post seems to have been removed (s’okay, it was basically just a link to this “review”). Oh, and just to give you an idea of where this video ranks in Dembski’s opinion, this video was removed, but “The Jude Jones School of Law is still up (albeit sans fart noises).

Monday Playlist
  • Hey Joe, Jimi Hendrix
  • Hey Jude, The Beatles
  • Hey You, Pink Floyd
  • Hey Ah, Laurie Anderson
  • Hey! Hey!, Cabaret Voltaire
  • Hey Ho!, Lords of Acid
  • Hey Bulldog, The Beatles
  • Hey Man Nice Shot, Filter
  • Hey Hey What Can I Do, Led Zeppelin
  • Hey Mr. DJ, I Thought You Said We Had A Deal, They Might Be Giants
  • Hey Citizen!, ABC
Priest Off!

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9uAWXUOeeU&rel=1&border=0]

Innate Social Skills

CNN has a story about an experiment that suggests that 6- to 10-month-old infants have at least some innate social skills:

The infants watched a googly eyed wooden toy trying to climb roller-coaster hills and then another googly eyed toy come by and either help it over the mountain or push it backward. They then were presented with the toys to see which they would play with.

Nearly every baby picked the helpful toy over the bad one.

The babies also chose neutral toys — ones that didn’t help or hinder — over the naughty ones. And the babies chose the helping toys over the neutral ones.

Obviously, this needs to be confirmed by other researchers, and one shouldn’t place too much trust in the result of one experiment, but it’s still interesting: it suggests that babies have an innate sense of “this person is friendly” and “that person is unfriendly”, based on observation of people’s behavior.

Now, this does not mean that babies or young children have any idea of “I should be friendly”, nor does it suggest that these babies can judge whether they themselves are being friendly.

The article does mention, though, that

A study last year out of Germany showed that babies as young as 18 months old overwhelmingly helped out when they could, such as by picking up toys that researchers dropped.

Note the 8-month difference between this study and the German one: presumably in that time, children learn that if they act in a friendly or helpful way, then others will be friendly in return.

So if confirmed, this should form a fairly solid basis for morality as an emergent phenomenon. We’re social creatures who want to be liked by those around us. This experiment suggests that we’re born with the ability to figure out whom to like (or at least can work it out at a very early age). We can also start modeling other people’s minds (in the sense of “if I do X, will it please that person?”) early on as well. In short, we have the capability to work out a set of behaviors that will allow us to get along, as well as the desire to do so.

Now, it’s true that we also want base self-gratification (e.g., “I want to play with that toy, so I’m going to take it away from you, and I don’t care whether it annoys you or not”). But wanting to get along with others plays a part as well. And of course children tend to believe what their parents tell them, and presumably the parents tend to teach children their own values, like playing nice with others.

So it’s a noisy and chaotic process, but over time, people can figure out what sorts of moral rules work and which ones don’t, and improve morality.

It’s sort of like Wikipedia, in which lots and lots of people making changes, some good and some bad, can nonetheless gradually improve.

(HT Martin Wagner for the link.)