Why Neil deGrasse Tyson is not an atheist -- and why we should reject labels

"I don’t associate with movements. I'm not an “ism.” I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that’s not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It’s not. I’d rather we explore each other’s ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert, you know, what’s going to happen in advance." [from Big Think]

Nanatsu no Taizai -- Seven Deadly Sins

For some reason [1] I had this random note with the translations for the seven deadly sins, from the japanese wikipedia. As a reminder that this blog don't need to be so serious, let me share with you this useless piece of information (it also has the spanish and latin terms).

七つの大罪

大罪	たいざい	スペイン語	ラテン語	英語
傲慢	ごうまん	Soberbia	Superbia	Pride
嫉妬	しっと	Envidia	Invidia	Envy
憤怒	ふんぬ	Ira	Ira	Wrath
怠惰	たいだ	Pereza	Acedia	Sloth
強欲	ごうよく	Avaricia	Avaritia	Greed
暴食	ぼうしょく	Gula	Gula	Gluttony
色欲	しきよく	Lujuria	Luxuria	Lust

I forgot to include the romanized reading in the table, they are respectively: gouman, shitto, fun-nu, taida, gouyoku, boushoku, and shikiyoku.


[1] Probably my wife was tired of me asking her the translation of the same term again and again, and suggested me to RTFM.

Anything goes on the internet

The "Special report: Living in denial" issue of the New Scientist (12 May 2010) has some interesting articles. Two excerpts below.

When a sceptic isn't a sceptic (by Michael Shermer):

A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead. A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing "confirmation bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.
(...)
It has, for example, become fashionable in some circles for anyone who dares to challenge the climate science "consensus" to be tarred as a denier and heaved into a vat of feathers. Do you believe in global warming? Answer with anything but an unequivocal yes and you risk being written off as a climate denier, in the same bag as Holocaust and evolution naysayers. (...) When I say "I believe in evolution" or "I believe in the big bang", this is something different from when I say, "I believe in a flat tax" or "I believe in liberal democracy".
(...)
What sometimes happens is that people confuse these two types of questions - scientific and ideological. Sometimes the confusion is deliberate. Denial is one outcome. Thus, one practical way to distinguish between a sceptic and a denier is the extent to which they are willing to update their positions in response to new information.

Questioning science isn't blasphemy (Michael Fitzpatrick):

As philosopher Edward Skidelsky of the University of Exeter, UK, has argued, crying denialism is a form of ad hominem argument: "the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives". The expanding deployment of the concept, he argues, threatens to reverse one of the great achievements of the Enlightenment - "the liberation of historical and scientific inquiry from dogma". Don't get me wrong: the popular appeal of pseudoscience is undoubtedly a problem. But name-calling is neither a legitimate nor an effective response.
(...)
Such attempts to combat pseudoscience by branding it a secular form of blasphemy are illiberal and intolerant. They are also ineffective, tending not only to reinforce cynicism about science but also to promote a distrust for scientific and medical authority that provides a rallying point for pseudoscience.

I also liked Jim Giles's article about how easy it is to spread a lie, and how hard to fix it nowadays.

Going green is not enough. Specially if you're running for president

There is a very positive article on The Economist about the Brazilian presidential candidate Marina Silva, a strong environmentalist. But one of her weak points is her permissive view towards religious issues, as described in the comment I dropped there:

You also forgot to mention her proximity with the creationist movement: when asked about it, she used the "teach the controversy" strategy, saying that the children should be free to decide. She also breached the religion-state separation a couple of times when lecturing at religious events as a minister.

I understand she fits well with the liberal saviour character that western academics enjoy, but they (and the media outlets) should not forget that she also represents a good share of the retrogressive religious wackos. I don't have quarrels with her being an outspoken person of faith, but she should also be outspoken about what is her stance on these (religious) issues, in such a way that voters and political pundits can know what to expect --besides going green, whatever that means. (IOW, she must show if she can control her clergy or if she is the one below the strings).

I am also suspicious about her connections with the Natura cosmetic firm's president (since we don't know if he's just a successful entrepreneur or he wants a legal platform to sell his snake-oil) and with a lame self-help writer (a medical version of Deepak Chopra).

(PS: I apologize but almost all the links are in portuguese)

Communication breakdown

from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. (when browsing their website comics, hover over the red button that appears on the left-bottom part of the comic. There's always a nice surprise ;)

God and Darwin in the Land of the Sun

For 59% of the Brazilians, humans are the result of millions of years of evolution, but guided by a supreme being, according to a Datafolha survey. On the other hand, 25% of the participants believe that the human being was created by god less than 10 thousand years ago and another 8% think that evolution takes place without god's intervention. The proportion of creationists was higher among lower income and less educated people. The dataset was composed of 4158 people older than 16 years old. I cannot provide more details now since 1) the full newspaper article is behind a paywall and 2) these surveys tend to be poorly designed, with ambiguous terms (e.g. in the free version of the article they mention the terms "Darwinists" and "creationists" along with the descriptions...) so that I should look at the details before commenting.

My impression is that this theistic evolution view of Brazilians reflects the catholicism to which many people loosely identify with - those self-proclaimed "non-practicing" catholics. The creationists are more frequent among the protestant churches, like the conservationist Marina Silva who is now a candidate for presidency. She has strong ties with religious movements and when questioned about her defense of the teaching of creationism backpedalled using the "let the children decide" argument.

Paraphrasing the great journalist Josias de Souza, Brazilians believe more in president Lula (76%) than in the evolution of the species.

PS: The post title is a reference to the cult Brazilian movie Black God, White Devil.
PPS: most links are in portuguese...

One year ago...

one of my favorite comics was saying goodbye.