What’s the most popular boys name in the Muslim world? “Mohammad,” or some spelling variation thereof. What’s a real popular name in the Spanish speaking world? “Jesus.” What’s *not* a popular name in the Anglosphere? “Jesus.” This has always kinda surprised me. Naming kids after revered characters is quite common, yet in the English speaking world naming your kid after the primary religious figure is considered inpoor taste. That said… “Joshua” is popular enough, won’t get you a second glance. Yet “Joshua” is the Anglicized version of the Latin name “Iesous,” which is a Greekified version of the Hebrew name “Yeshua,” what Jesus would have been called by the Hebrews of that time and place. Similarly, Mathew, Mark, John, Paul, Ringo, Steven, Luke, Han, Adam, Mary, David, Debby, Abigail, Peter, Joseph and a number of other distinctly Biblical names are now quite popular.
Why blather forth about this? Because I laughed my face off a few days at WalMart. Wandering about, minding my own business, I passed by a common enough WalMart trope: a mother yelling at her oblivious, misbehaving horrible little brat. You learn to tune such things out. But something penetrated the wall and got my attention: the mother, in yelling at her child, kept calling him “Messiah.” Now maybe it’s “Massiya” or some other oddball spelling, but the pronunciation was the same. And it seems to me that if “Jesus” is considered poor form, surely “Messiah” should be too.
Ponderable: if “Mohammad” is popular in the Islamic world, how about naming your kid “Allah” or “Mahdi?” Surely that would result in nothing but praise and instant puppies.
For those who don’t recall… Clochmed was the kid who took the electrical bits out of a commercial digital plug-in-the-wall clock and re-installed them within a nicely conductive metal case (an off the shelf pencil box, now equipped with wall plug and exposed wiring). When he was arrested for bringing a “hoax bomb” to school (note: not for bringing a bomb… nobody on scene thought it was actually a bomb, they just assumed that it was something meant to *look* like a bomb in order to scare people), his family was able to parlay that into lots of swag, visits to the President, ill-advised compliments from people who should have known better about what a brilliant “inventor” the kid was (remember: he didn’t build the clock… he just took it out of a plastic housing and put it in a metal one), and a chance to play lawsuit lotto with the town of Irving, Texas. The family, after complaining about Clochmeds human rights being violated, pulled up stakes and moved to Qatar where their human rights are certain to be safe.
If there’s anyone about dense enough to think that*clearly* this was racism/Islamophobia on the part of the authorities in Irving, and that such a thing would never happen to Privileged White Kids, let me REMIND YOU: Pop Tart Pistols.
This is some sorta propaganda art-film. The winner of a competition organized by the horrifically-named “Européens Sans Frontières (Europeans Without Borders),” the purpose of which, best as I can gather, was to produce a film about the plight of “migrants” as they try to gain access to (and gain control over) the lands and womenfolk of western Europe. I think that’s it, anyway. But the end result is… well, I’ll have to let it speak for itself, cuz I sure as shootin’ can’t explain it:
What *seems* to happen here is that a bespectacled European fairy aids some human traffickers in smuggling a family of “migrants” into western Europe in order to provide cheap labor and put some locals out of work. or something, it’s hard to tell. The original was in French, so maybe it loses something in translation. The thing is, I honestly can’t tell what the actual propaganda is here. Is it supposed to be “we welcome our replacements,” as seems the PC thing for Europeans to do these days? Or is the complete ridiculousness of it meant to satire that sentiment? Or – and I might be going a bit out on a limb here – is this actually a dark tale about one of the few remaining European fairy folk getting revenge on the European humans who wiped out her kind by sneaking in other humans from an alien and antagonistic culture, knowing full well that once a critical mass of the invaders are in place Europe will be plunged into another meatgrinder, killing off tens or hundreds of millions of humans, and providing the now nearly extinct fairy folk with a measure of justice against the Europeans who wiped them out centuries before?
In short, the argument goes: religion evolved as an instinct, providing evolutionary advantages. Intelligence, however, allows one to over-ride instincts. Thus on average an intelligent person is more likely to be an atheist because they can bypass their instincts in favor of reason.
Note the direction in which the logic flows: “if you are more intelligent, you are more likely to become an atheist.” It’s *not* “if you’re an atheist, it proves you’re intelligent.”
So. Surely nobody will be upset or annoyed by this.
“It’s true that people who are less intelligent tend to have more children than people who are more intelligent,” Dutton tells Newsweek . “And intelligence is negatively associated with religiousness. So on that basis, you would expect religiousness to increase.
“If you have higher intelligence, you’re less instinctive. You’re lower in what you might call ‘evolved instincts’ that have evolved over thousands and thousands of years until the Industrial Revolution, when natural selection slowed down.”
He says that with intelligence being around 80 percent genetic, eventually there will be a decline in intelligence—and, as a result—a rise in religiousness. And this, he adds, could eventually lead to the fall of society. “It was commented on at the end of Rome, that the upper class weren’t having any children. It’s the same now,” he says.
I’ve seen that movie.
This is, perhaps shockingly, a concept I touch on in my Zaneverse novel.
There is another way to look at the evidence: prison. Prisons are jam-packed full of violent, stupid, thuggish brutes. They don’t, however, seem to be overflowing with atheists; rather, prison ministries of all kinds seem to be going gangbusters. Intelligence and prison seem to be negatively correlated; prison and belief in a deity that *explicitly* told your dumb ass not to do exactly what got you chucked into prison seem to be positively correlated.
We all know – because some people just won’t shut the hell up about it – that there is a “wage gap” between men and women. Those who are honest about the topic know that a large fraction of the gap comes down to the fact that there are a lot more men in the STEM fields, which tend to pay better. So, how to close the gap? Hire more womenfolk, obviously. But how does a woman get hired as, say, an engineer, a technician, a mechanic, a scientist? Forget all that “schooling and hard work” crap, there’s a better solution! Coming soon to a university curriculum near you, no doubt…
Meet a woman who ties herself up and casts spells to find empowerment.
Well, hell, and here I thought “empowerment” came from learning all you could, making yourself invaluable and doing a good job. Apparently, though, it actually involves ropes.
Hey, weird chick, you be you. If this sort of thing is fun and entertaining for you, then, whoopee, I guess. Fine, great, whatever. But when this sort of thing is touted as real and anything remotely resembling rational or aspirational, as opposed to being a cautionary tale of “this is what happens when someone is unsullied by reason or skepticism,” it’s hardly a wonder that far too many people avoid good and useful paths in life – the kind that aid society and pay well, but require that you work hard and honestly – in favor of buying into magic.
When I say “magic” I don’t mean I’m turning something into something else — magic is working with energy. You can’t create something that isn’t there. You’re using energy and you’re manipulating energy with intention, so I’m working with the energy of my own self-love and manipulating that and working with that in a positive way and setting intentions for myself.
There’s a new use of words like “energy” and “intention” that I really don’t think apply to anything in the real world.
The guy killed six people, and managed to get released in a prisoner exchange. There are two “ponderables” that spring immediately to mind:
What does this say about the mindset of the people who voted for him?
What does this say about the wisdom of releasing terrorists in prisoner exchanges without first injecting them with AIDS, mercury, lead? Is it possible to create a small capsule that can be injected or swallowed that will sit there inert for, say, a year or two and then break open and infect the guy with rabies?
The results – the MMA fighter had the “Master” on the ground within about seven seconds, then spent another dozen seconds or so repeatedly pounding said “Master” in the noggin. It was a classic rout… it was not even remotely close. So how’d this happen?
Well, think about it. Classical martial arts are kind of an art form… sort of like dance, with rules and traditions and ethics. Focusing on a specific martial art, such as Tai Chi (which, honestly, to me always makes me think of “old people moving slowly”), may make you an expert in that martial art… but it may also limit you to the moves associated with that martial art. But “mixed martial arts,” that’s another matter. Here, the goal is not to honor ancient traditions, but instead to beat your opponent into the dirt by whatever means necessary.
Now, admittedly, your average black belt could undoubtedly pummel me so fast I’d be indistinguishable from a screeching SJW in a matter of seconds. But if it came down to a fight between an Old School Traditionalist and an MMA fighter, or a Navy SEAL… I’m putting my money on the guy who’s job it is to beat the crap out of the other fella.
Traditional martial arts are necessarily hidebound… they are traditions, after all. Perhaps they have been finely honed over the centuries, brought to a level of perfection. And that’s fine, but don’t confuse it for “actually useful in a combat situation.” The Samurai are today seen as some sort of near-magical combatants, yet the Japanese military hardly employs them anymore. The *actual* Samurai got slapped around by a bunch of Japanese farm kids with rifles back in the 19th century. When the Japanese Empire decided to revive the Samurai “Bushido Code” and virtually worship the Samurai in the first half of the 20th century, they got smacked around by a bunch of American farm kids with rifles.
The katana, the chosen sword of the Samurai, is itself a fantastic example of what I’m talking about. Over a thousand years of so, Japanese swordsmiths created a beautiful sword… but imbued with with mystical claptrap. And if there’s one thing that doesn’t help your sword actually perform, it’s magic. The katana is viewed by many as being some sort of nearly perfect tool… the traditional manufacturing process creating a blade of remarkable strength, durability and sharpness, the killingest chunk of metal to be found. But… no. What those swordsmiths produced was a blade that would be regularly bested by a virtually identical blade made by machines using modern steel straight out of a steel mill.None of all that folding or tradition… just take some bar stock, hammer a bit, grind a bit, heat treat a bit, then go embarrass the hell out of the relatively brittle “traditional” sword. What the Japanese swordsmiths succeeded at was making not the best possible sword steel, but the best possible sword steel using the technology and science that they had. But their techniques were evolutionary dead ends. They made, in essence, the very best possible Thylacines. Great fits for their niche… until something better and more adaptable came along. In the case of the katana, what came along was Western science.
And in actual head-to-head competitions science will kick mystical traditions ass, every time. Where science will lose is not in the actual fight, but the propaganda. People are willing to believe nonsense over sense, especially if the nonsense makes promises that science can’t. Doesn’t matter if the nonsense can actually make good on the promise, many people will still buy it. So… will moving slowly make you capable of defending yourself against a mugger? Sure, why not! It’s an ancient tradition!
On one hand, you might think that I’d approve of the recent “March for Science” because if you’ve read this blog for more than a few minutes you’ll realize I’m a fan of the scientific method. Secondly, I recognize that the world seems to be increasingly full of derp and bringing the value of science to the forefront seems like a damned good idea.
But…. nope. Couldn’t have cared less about the “March for Science.” Largely because it didn’t seem to be a “march for science,” but rather a “march for some science and for certain politics.” Now, granted, the right wing, which I suppose most people would at least nominally lump me in with, seems to be on a particularly anti-science course. The tardtacular creationists seem to be creatures almost wholly of the right, and they’re sheer wrongness is as obvious as a suicide bomb. The current administration (which is somehow assumed to be right wing, against all evidence) seems to have a hardon for slashing science funding. But the left has their anti-nuclear idiots and the anti-GMO scumbags… and even their pro-science advocates often seem to be more religious zealots than adherents to a methodology that starts off with “well, maybe I’m wrong here; check my math.”
… most “pro-science” demonstrators have no idea what they were demonstrating about. Being “pro-science” has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals (and other members of the cultural elite) engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art, while demonstrating zero evidence to justify it.
The sad fact is, most people don’t have clue one what science *is.* Most people seem to think that “science” is “technology.” But it ain’t. Science is a method. A method that, at it’s core, is simply a rational way to separate fact from bullcrap… even if the bullcrap is what the scientist doing the work desperately wants to believe to be true.
Science isn’t proclamation from on high; science is often hard damn work, with a whole lot of number crunching and statistics. But the really, really grating thing is this: science need not be that hard to explain and understand. Oh, sure, the more advanced corners of it will always be well beyond the vast majority of people… start going on about *anything* that involves tensor math and my eyes instantly glaze over and I start pondering something simple and sexy like “gee, wouldn’t it be fun to build a small ejector ramjet in my back yard, one hardly needs *any* complex math for rocketry.” But the basics of science are – or at least should be – taught to every school child. It’s really not that hard… see an issue, come up with a hypothesis, run some tests and try to prove yourself wrong. As tests produce data that conflicts with your hypothesis, either change the hypothesis to match, or ditch it entirely. Imagine if every adult got enough of a refresher course so that this sank in. People wouldn’t be able to create new antibiotics or search for gravity waves, but they might be able to do some basic science about “what’s the most cost effective way to do my laundry” or “what’s the fastest route to work” or some such. If people would apply the scientific method to everyday issues, they could not only improve their lives, they’d also come to appreciate science… at the same time they lose the cargo cult religion aspect of science worship.
It occurs to me that “science” has something in common with “firearms” here. Science and firearms are both used by some people, not used by most people; science and firearms are things that are held to be virtually magical by some people, and treated with respect by others. And in both cases, it’s the people who use and understand them that treat them with respect; it’s the people who don’t use and understand them that convert them into fetishes. It’s Hollywood and the gun grabbers who venerate firearms as magical killing machines, capable of doing things they cannot, and attributing to them motivations that firearms do not have.
My scholarship currently focuses on applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women’s studies and ethnic studies to engage students in creating a democratic classroom that encourages all voices. In 2005 I received a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation to support this work, which includes developing, implementing, and assessing curricular and pedagogical innovations based on liberative pedagogies and student input at Smith, and understanding how students at Smith conceptualize their identities as engineers. I seek as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges.
I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups.
In EGR 330 (Engineering and Global Development), we critically evaluate past and current trends in appropriate and sustainable technology. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism and colonialism, and the role technology plays in movements that counter these forces. Gender is a key thread running through the course in examining issues of water supply and quality, food production and energy.
In EGR 205 (Science, Technology and Ethics), we consider questions such as who decides how science and engineering are done, who can participate in the scientific enterprise and what problems are legitimately addressed within these disciplines and professions. We take up racist and colonialist projects in science, as well as the role of technology, culture and economic systems in the drive toward bigger, faster, cheaper and more automated production of goods. A course theme around technology and control provides for exploration of military, information, reproductive and environmental applications. Using readings from philosophy, science and technology studies, and feminist and postcolonial science studies, we explore these topics and encounter new models of science and engineering that are responsive to ethical concerns.
A few things:
“Democratic classrooms that encourage all voices:” this is utterly inappropriate in engineering. Is it because democracy is wrong? No… it’s because some *people* are wrong. In engineering there are *clear* wrong answers. There’s no “you tried” award if there’s a “your bridge collapsed under normal loading.” With a “democratic classroom” that “encourages all voices,” the students trying to get an actual education will have to share time with the fricken’ idiot who thinks that getting a shaman to bless the bridge, or building not out of steel but some sacred rubber tree, or waving magic crystals over forming stress cracks are all cromulent ideas.
“uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups,” is, I suppose, fine if your interest in engineering is the *history* of engineering… but it’s utterly meaningless if your interest in engineering is, y’know, engineering. It’s been a bit of a while since I got my degree, but as memory serves, we spent approximatley zero time on describing the peronal travails of the various people who discovered or invented the little bits of science, technology and math that we used. In aeronautics we learned about Bernoulli’s Theorem… because it’s important and relevant. What did we learn about Bernoulli the man? Doodly squat. Because WHO CARES. Whether he was a asexual autistic Italian banker, or lesbian Swiss cheesemaker makes absolutely no difference to the theorem itself. E=mc^2, after all, whether Einstein was German or Austrian or Swiss or Japanese, white or black, Jewish or Hindu.
“Womens Studies/Ethnic studies/Colonialism:” you see any of that and you know you’re in for an idiot harangue from someone who cares far more about who did something than what that something actually was.
The reasoning behind this hire seems straightforward enough to suss out. STEM fields are overwhelmingly dominated by white and Asian males; females and males Of Some Other Color are under represented. And this has become a political cause among the shouting set in recent years, because STEM graduates *tend* to make pretty good incomes (present company sadly excluded) because STEM fields are, compared to libarts, actually useful to society. So, fine, bring in more women and People Of Some Non-White Color in the the STEM classrooms. The more the merrier! But where this is a screwup is that the process isn’t to convince women to do the hard work and take the math and engineering courses… they’re trying to water down STEM to where it’s palatable to the type of person who thinks that womens or ethnic studies courses are actually a good idea.