Have fun, add to the list....

H/T to my borther, and his blog 40 Years in the Desert

The Lord works in marvelous ways, his wonders to behold

 

And God has also sent earthquakes to fracking Oklahoma

I seemed to have missed something

According to one Bettany Hughes (Mary Renault's hardcore classicism - Telegraph), I missed all the good parts of Mary Renault's novels, "hardcore, drug-saturated sensuality of the ancient world."



Pity, perhaps I was blinded by the over indulgence in her writing in human
drama, interesting ideas and valid emotional content.



Silly me.

Re: Schadenfreude

In fairness, I thought I would post a link to Michael LaCour's LaCour_Response_05-29-2015.pdf.

defense of his publication, as mentioned in a blog post by myself on Thursday, May 28, 2015 (Schadenfreude).


This response is not convincing to me, or a lot of other folks.  (See

the response (The Strangest Thing About LaCour’s Response -- Science of Us) to LaCour's response by Jesse Singal, who wrote an expose article (The Case of the Amazing Gay-Marriage Data: How a Graduate Student Reluctantly Uncovered a Huge Scientific Fraud).


In LaCour's document there is a technical discussion about the data, though the basic question is not why a different group got different results, but why the original results looks too good.


And more disappointingly (as I was hoping for a good story), LaCour's response does not address

1. Why there is no trail for the surveys.  That survey data might be deleted as part of an IRB agreement is not unreasonable -- though typically, it is delayed for sometime because of just such potential issues. 
2. That the survey firm which was supposed to have conducted the survey denies that it did so.
3. That the existence of his alleged contact at the firm does not appear to exist.

In the "impeach the witness' credibility" category, it is reported that there is a lack of evidence that he received a teach award he reports on his vita, and that one of his funding sources appears not to exist (Michael LaCour Made Up a Teaching Award, Too -- Science of Us).

Ben Goldacre's rule and Ardent Creationist Finds Fossil

Ben Acre (see also Bad Science) has propounded a simple law of nature:

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”*


To whit:  Ardent Creationist Finds Fossilized Fish, Still Isn't Convinced Evolution Is Real


I particularly like the quote to refute science: "We all have the same evidence...and it’s just a matter of how you interpret it."


Yeah.


____________

 *I don't think this quote is uniquely his, but he seems to do good work.

Schadenfreude

It is said that some words are not translatable into English.

This is not true: if the concept is useful, the word will be in English, just wait.

This is one of the things I love about English.

Schadenfreude is now an English word (from the German  harm-joy).  It was once defined by Denis Norton, CBE on the BBC radio show My Word! as "That agreeable sensation one feels on watching someone spring on to a bicycle, only to discover the saddle [seat] is missing."

That is amusement at the expense of the pain of others.

Earlier, a major if unappreciated American sage and blogger wrote an article entitled,  Rare, surprising, interesting, and depressing event, about the This American Life 'article', Do Ask, Do Tell., of the show, The Incredible Rarity of Changing Your Mind.

He complained, there it was reported that a valid study that showed "changes in opinion came about not through 'reasoned' arguments, but by appeals to emotional connection ...", providing an uplifting story "in a 'Here we can see the importance of actual humans interacting'..." way.

This was depressing to the author because of what he perceived as the arational "limitations of most [people's] decision making" which he found "both alienating and depressing".

I would like to point out, because the data was reported was published in a peer reviewed, respectable journal (Science), and was reported to have been reproduced, the author said he would have to accept and deal with results -- you should not cherry pick science.

Oh, but he should have had faith.

The research article and the radio broadcast have both been retracted (see in Retraction Watch and (This American Life Retracts Story Based on Falsified Gay Marriage Study).

It seems that the surveys cannot be found to be 'missing', that the research unreporducilble by others, and that party conducting the research Michael LaCour, a graduate student at UCLA) fooled his advisor Donald Green, of Columbia.In fairness to Mr. LaCour, he states that he "will supply a definitive response on or before May 29, 2015."

(By the way, given recent research -- which I know is risky to quote -- the retraction will only make more people believe the underlying story....)

This pleases that author as:

1. It does show, in 'a mills of the gods gind slow, but exceeding fine'* sort of way,
   that science does work.
2. It gives some (small) hope that rational argument might be at least as
   valuable as emotional suasion in getting people to perform the correct action.
3. His disdain of this American Life may not be unjustified (which is unfair, but he doesn't care, he still finds Ira Glass' voice grating).

__________
* Earliest known source is in Adversus Mathematicos (Against the Mathematicians) by the Ancient Greek sceptic philosopher, Sextus Empiricus.  See also Retribution, by Longfellow.

Ceux qui ne sont pas charlie

A number of writers decided to exercise the right of free association and boycotted a recent PEN America awards ceremony (Two dozen writers join Charlie Hebdo PEN award protest ...), because of its honoring Charlie Hebdo, Journal irresponsable.



I like to think of these as members of the "Yes, but..." club. 



Here is a take on it, Cruelty and Perversity: Postprandial Reflections on the PEN Protester , found in Tablet Magazine, by Paul Berman, who did not boycott the affair.



For the record, I believe that if it isn't offensive, speech isn't likely to be free.