Somewhere Different Now

January 9, 2009

It’s not the best live recording ever, but I really love these lyrics:

Now I don’t mind saying, I believe in the waiting
In the visions of grandeur, and the random encounter
I’m not on fire, not burned out
Just somewhere different now

Advertisements

Spring Twitterpation

January 9, 2009

Neighborhood blog Prince of Petworth posts on pick up spots for that Spring romance. Don’t worry GGF (globalizati’s girlfriend), I’m not taking his advice. ;-)


Christian Humanism?

January 9, 2009

David Manes–a peer from my college days–has written a fascinating piece on Christian humanism, exceeded only by the discussion it prompted.

Personally, I think the merger of Christianity and humanism dulls the meaning of one or the other, but would be a lot happier with Christian humanists running around than Christian fundamentalists, so I won’t complain too much. I think growing up a fundamentalist makes it hard to accept more liberal/ less strident expressions of faith as being legitimate forms of Christianity. For a while I went through what I call my “liberal Christian phase” (about 9 months maybe?) where I described myself as a Christian and said that I believed in God. Over time I realized that what I meant by “Christian,” what I thought of Christ, and what I meant by “God” (something akin to Einstein’s God/Universe equivalence) were drastically different from what the people I was conversing with meant.

At this point, I feel that God, as commonly defined by most of the people I know who claim belief in Him, is not a concept that I find very useful/helpful/logical. If everyone meant what Einstein said, then I might describe myself as a deist/theist/whateverist, but we don’t live in that world.


Leave it to the professionals

January 9, 2009

Jonah Lehrer posts on amateur science, quoting Steven Shapin’s piece in Seed:

The transformation of science from a calling to a job happened largely during the course of the past century. Indeed, science is arguably the world’s youngest profession: The routinization of the paid role is less than a hundred years old; the word “scientist,” coined in 1840, was not in standard usage until the early 20th century.


Recognize the Brainwashing

January 7, 2009

One of the best ways to draw out Internet crazies is to post on someone’s favorite pet conspiracy theory in mocking, derisive tones. It’s like Will Smith dripping blood on a sidewalk in I Am Legend (a movie that had the potential to be really good, alas). I’ve done this before, rather accidentally, when posting about the 9/11 “Truth” community. It also works with Creationism, which, while not exactly a conspiracy theory (we all know that the evil Darwinists are the true conspiracy) shares a lot of the same features.

On that note, I came across a website today while exercising my conspiracy theory fetish: a list of top Conspiracy Theory Sites
:


Caption: ALIENS CAN’T PROTECT US FROM COMING WORLD WARS, OR EARTH IMPACTS BY COMETS/ASTEROIDS! FALSE SIGN OF PROTECTION COMING! RECOGNIZE THE BRAINWASHING!

It’s really hard to tell if some of these sites are serious or not, but I tend to assume they are…


Caption: Mind Deprogramming is a site to help you to protect yourself from mind control from The New World Order and The Illuminati. You can watch hundreds of videos exposing the truth the corporate controlled media do not want you to see.


US “Free Press” Toes US Party Line

January 6, 2009

Al-Jazeera has a damning article up on the US media’s coverage of the conflict in Gaza:

The images of two women on the front page of an edition of The Washington Post last week illustrates how mainstream US media has been reporting Israel’s war on Gaza.
On the left was a Palestinian mother who had lost five children. On the right was a nearly equally sized picture of an Israeli woman who was distressed by the fighting, according to the caption.
As the Palestinian woman cradled the dead body of one child, another infant son, his face blackened and disfigured with bruises, cried beside her.
The Israeli woman did not appear to be wounded in any way but also wept.

This English-language Al-Jazeera article is aimed at readers like me. It worked…


Seeing What They Want to See

January 6, 2009

Sometimes it takes a fresh eye (or a bleary-eyed grad student) to catch what others have missed. Jonah Lehrer, Mind Hacks, and Neurocritic all blog about a paper by Edward Vul and others revealing some troubling exaggerations of correlations in social neuroscience imaging. Hopefully this paper will get some traction and cause the methodology in question to be reexamined–that’s how science progresses, after all.

The paper is available online (PDF) and the abstract is here:

The newly emerging field of Social Neuroscience has drawn much attention in recent years, with high-profile studies frequently reporting extremely high (e.g., >.8)
correlations between behavioral and self-report measures of personality or emotion and
measures of brain activation obtained using fMRI. We show that these correlations often
exceed what is statistically possible assuming the (evidently rather limited) reliability of
both fMRI and personality/emotion measures. The implausibly high correlations are all
the more puzzling because social-neuroscience method sections rarely contain sufficient
detail to ascertain how these correlations were obtained. We surveyed authors of 54
articles that reported findings of this kind to determine the details of their analyses. More
than half acknowledged using a strategy that computes separate correlations for
individual voxels, and reports means of just the subset of voxels exceeding chosen
thresholds. We show how this non-independent analysis grossly inflates correlations,
while yielding reassuring-looking scattergrams. This analysis technique was used to
obtain the vast majority of the implausibly high correlations in our survey sample. In
addition, we argue that other analysis problems likely created entirely spurious correlations in some cases. We outline how the data from these studies could be
reanalyzed with unbiased methods to provide the field with accurate estimates of the
correlations in question. We urge authors to perform such reanalyses and to correct the
scientific record.