New strategy: if we sow enough confusion about what knowledge is, we can win!

I’ve never heard of Alex Beam before, which is a good thing — he seems to be some kind of journalist at the Boston Globe, and that’s about all I know about him, other than that he seems to be an oblivious idiot. He has a column up in which he rages about the phrase “knowledge-based”, apparently because he doesn’t understand it. His first target is to fulminate against that expression, “reality based”, which many on the left adopted after the lunacy of the Bush presidency, a phrase invented by the Bushies to describe us:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality–judiciously, as you will–we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Beam doesn’t understand this. His rebuttal registers complete incomprehension.

The Bush presidency always seemed quite fact-freighted to me. The 9/11 attacks were plenty factual, as were the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the tens of thousands of deaths that ensued.

Yes. People died on 9/11; that’s real. Even more people died in Afghanistan and Iraq; that’s also real. What Beam glosses over is that there was no credible connection between those two countries and the deaths in New York, and that the Right failed to “create” their own personal, private reality.

A reality-based community would suggest that when you’re attacked, you should respond by evaluating the causes and retaliate appropriately, rather than deciding that here’s a fine time to build an empire. I don’t think that’s so hard to understand.

Then he throws another random example at us.

What in heaven’s name, for instance, is “evidence-based medicine”? Here is a quote from the august British Medical Journal that should set us straight: “Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” And the opposite of this would be … divination? Are men and women trooping out of the nation’s medical schools trained to flip coins or toss the I Ching on the floor of the intensive care unit if a diagnosis isn’t quickly forthcoming?

Deepak Chopra. Oprah Winfrey. The Center for Spirituality and Healing. Homeopathy. Acupuncture. Reflexology. Iridology. Dr Oz. Anti-vaccination movements. Therapeutic Touch.

Yes, some of them are coming out of our med schools, most are pouring out over the television and radio — we have swarms of men and women peddling non-evidence-based medicine, utter, non-functional, untested, useless garbage at sick people. There clearly are a great many quacks pushing fake remedies that ignore and even contradict the evidence.

Alex Beam must live inside a windowless Faraday cage to be unaware of the realities that are being flouted every day. And he really calls himself a journalist? He does conclude with an ironic comment.

Knowledge-based journalism? Good grief. If that catches on, people like me will be out of a job.

We can always hope.

In case you’ve been trying to sort out what’s going on in UK media this week…

Here’s an extraordinarily clear short summary of Rupert Murdoch’s misery, the commendable efforts of the Guardian to report on the sleaze, and the likely fate of the principals — written with oblivious Americans in mind. By the way, one of Murdoch’s cheese factories, News of the World, has gone down in flames, like a great bloated dirigible strafed by Twitter. I am amused.

If only the US could do something similar to Fox News…

It’s a dog’s life

That last post was just too saccharine, so I have to bring you down. Balance! Balance in all things! So here’s your official downer for the day: a story about greyhound racing.

One thing about greyhounds: They aren’t likely to die of old age. When dogs turn 4 or 5 and are finished racing, she claims, “it’s more cost-efficient for trainers and owners to kill a dog than to house and feed it.”

Pro-racing folks balk at that claim, saying that today, most greyhounds are humanely retired, not killed. But in 2002, Alabama investigators found the bodies of thousands of dead greyhounds on the property of 68-year-old Robert Rhodes, a part-time security guard at a track in Pensacola. Rhodes admitted using a .22 caliber rifle to shoot more than 2,000 dogs from all over Florida during the 20 years he worked at the track. He was paid $10 per dog, which he said covered the cost of digging the holes across his 18-acre property. Investigators called the graveyard “a Dachau for dogs.”

Read the whole thing. Greyhounds are one of the most docile, friendly dog breeds, and they are routinely wrecked in a cruel sport for the jollies of callous gamblers. If dog fighting is a brutal ‘sport’ that is rightfully banned, I don’t understand why this abuse is allowed to persist.

Stop Rupert Murdoch now

We already know how unethical and sleazy Murdoch-owned media are — and now, if you’re in the UK, you should be aware that he’s making a grab to take control of an even larger slice of the media pie.

Murdoch already controls more of our media than is legal in many countries – and is notorious for using his power to skew our politics. The official consultation ends this Friday — let’s tell the government we don’t want his media empire to control our largest commercial broadcaster. Send a message now — using your own words to make it stand out — calling on Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron to refuse Murdoch’s BSkyB deal until there’s a full Competition Commission review and a full public inquiry into phone hacking.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation already owns 40% of British newspapers and 40% of BSkyB, the UK’s largest commercial broadcaster. In the US, Australia and elsewhere this degree of media dominance would not be allowed. News Corporation has admitted responsibility for hacking the phones of politicians and celebrities, and now stands accused of listening to messages of a murdered 13 year old girl. But our government wants to give Murdoch power over half of our media, allowing him to then squeeze out his rivals one by one.

There’s much more information here, and also something you can do: a letter-writing campaign has begun to request the British government to block the monopolistic acquisition of the network BSkyB. Contribute!

The Decent Human Beings’ Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences

There are so many clueless comments in this thread that Old Man PZ, grizzled veteran of the sex wars, successful lothario who has managed to reproduce three times, and champion who successfully landed a Trophy Partner in an extremely long and happy relationship, feels like he needs to step in and give some friendly advice. So here you go, the short sweet simple Decent Human Beings’ Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences.

The first thing you must know is that you haven’t failed when the object of your desire says “no”. That’s a perfectly reasonable response, and even if you do everything exactly right, you’re going to hear “no” more often than you do “yes”. Accepting a refusal graciously is an important part of being a Decent Human Being.

You have failed if the person you’re interested in calls your behavior creepy. That’s where you need to step back and re-evaluate: you did something wrong. Decent Human Beings do not blame the other person, they recognize that they screwed up, accept their responsibility, and decide not to ever do that again.

What could you have done wrong? Here are some general suggestions.

Be self-aware. Are you sweaty and rumpled? Did you just eat a pound of greasy garlic fries? Are you drunk? Did the conversation just die because you’re too tired to think straight? You are probably at a nadir of attractiveness, then, and this probably isn’t the best time to step forward and invite close contact.

Be aware of your potential partner. Are they looking like they really want a hot shower and to brush their teeth? Do they look worn out after a long day of meetings? Then maybe they will regretfully turn you down, because as a Decent Human Being themself, they’re not going to inflict their hygienically unprepared body on you.

I know, this should be obvious, but if you are hoping to get laid at the big atheist conference, the first thing to do after the day of meetings is to go back to your room, take a shower, and dress nicely. Go out for a pleasant evening with the people you’ve met, drink in moderation, be friendly and pleasant and interesting, and strike up conversations with people. Your goal should be to make a connection, first; if you don’t, then you’re not going to get laid, and you should resign yourself to that.

What about tactics? I know all the games entitled young men, in particular, play. If you are deploying wingmen, if you are approaching this as you would a gazelle hunt, where the goal is to isolate a target from the herd and make them vulnerable so they will succumb to you, where getting the target stupefyingly drunk is a desirable means to an end, then you might get laid — I don’t deny that those tactics works for unscrupulous people — but you will have forfeited the title of Decent Human Being, and we’d rather you didn’t come to our meetings. Also, atheist women tend to be assertive and not at all bashful about telling everyone else about your behavior, and you’ll find yourself discussed on youtube and on blogs and perhaps even from the podium at the meeting. Then you’ll feel compelled to comment anonymously on those blogs, complaining about ball-busting man-haters, and you’ll be forever receding from that desirable status as Decent Human Being.

You don’t get to whine about being called out. It’s what we do. Join a cult if you’d rather have rules of silence and obedience.

So you’re down at the bar having a good time. How do you make the next move? Actually, asking “Would you like to come up to my roon for a cup of coffee?” or “How about if we continue this someplace a little more private?” are perfectly acceptable lines to use! Context is very important, though. If you are actually having a fun and sparkling conversation one-on-one with someone in a public place, with maybe a little flirting going on, then yes, ask away! If all you’ve been doing is general banter with a group, well then, there hasn’t been any really personal interaction so far, so expecting more is a bit presumptuous.

Remember, this is not a gazelle hunt. Decent Human Beings always give potential partners opportunity to gracefully decline, and best of all, put them in positions of equal status so they aren’t afraid to decline. If they look startled or their eyes dart around looking for an avenue of escape, you screwed up. Apologize and back off immediately.

Now you might find this hard to believe (I know I do), but I’ve been in this position several times at atheist meetings. I’m a homely old guy, not exactly what anyone would consider romantic material, and I’ve received variants of the “come up to my room for coffee” line from several women and one man. I did not find it at all creepy — it was extremely flattering, as you might guess — because in every case these were offers from intelligent people in reasonable contexts, that is, Decent Human Beings.

Being a Decent Human Being is actually the best defense you can have. Don’t abandon it for short-term gain: you’re in a community, and you’re going to lose that if you think of yourself as a predator on the make.

Now at this point, hopefully, you are two people in a hotel room. What next? I can’t help you much at this point, because I’ve always turned those offers down, and all of my dating experience is from 35 years ago, and in my current long-term relationship, we dated for two months before we even kissed. I’m pretty much the wrong person to ask for advice on what to do on one-night stands, except that as someone aspiring to be a Decent Human Being, “no” will always mean “no“, and maybe it should always be a good idea to keep on communicating as equals during the engagement. Also, everything that follows should be personal and private, so if you’re checking a blog post on the internet to see what to do next, you’re probably also doing it wrong.

Of course, if any more experienced commenters would like to offer further suggestions, they’re welcome to continue…as long as they remember these are guidelines for Decent Human Beings, not misogynistic exploiters and parasites.

I’m so over Pirates of the Caribbean now

I finally saw Pirates of the Caribbean 4: On Stranger Tides tonight, and I’ve got to say…Tim Powers was robbed. It was a mess of a movie that wobbled from point to point, with no sense behind it, and a plot that had nothing to do with what I expected.

Skip the theater and read the book, On Stranger Tides, instead. This movie could have been stunning if it had simply used that wild and thrilling story from Powers, instead of stealing only the title, giving a feeble acknowledgment (“Story suggested by Tim Powers”), and then ignoring everything in the book.

Someday, I would like to see something by Powers given the full movie treatment. If not On Stranger Tides, somebody should take a shot at The Anubis Gates, the best damn time-travel novel ever written. It would beat the pale and hackneyed writing that characterizes most SF movies nowadays, that are little more than clumsily plotted vehicles for CGI and confusingly violent action.

Also, this movie didn’t have any cephalopods in it. Not a glimpse of even a single tentacle.

Why is Silvana Koch-Mehrin being appointed to the Research Commission of the European Parliament?

This is a German scandal: Sylvana Koch-Mehrin was recently found to be guilty of extensive plagiarism in her doctoral thesis, such a blatant abuse of scholarship that the University of Heidelberg took the remarkable step of revoking her doctoral degree. Before that happened, she had been marching up the ladder of the European political cursus honorum, reaching the rank of vice-president of the European Parliament until her disgrace forced her to resign.

But now a very odd thing has happened: this ex-scholar, this impeached student, this deplorable fraud has been appointed as a full member to the Committee on Industry, Research, and Energy of the Parliament. I don’t get it. She’s screwed up so badly that she’s been tumbled out of a prime political position, so the Parliament turns around and elects her to the committee that oversees research policy? Doesn’t this suggest that the Parliament cares little for competence and integrity, but loves it some cronyism?

Scienceblogs.de has more information and a petition demanding her resignation. Support good science and science policy and throw the rascals out.