Can you guess who said this?

Can you guess who said the following?

The concept of success leads me to consider so-called meritocracies and their implications. We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumerate–these are the folks who reap the largest rewards. The only way for even a putative meritocracy to hope to pass ethical muster, to be considered fair, is if those who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to share their luck with others. As the Gospel of Luke says (and I am sure my rabbi will forgive me for quoting the New Testament in a good cause): “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.” [My emphasis-MS]

[Read more…]

Is psychology a science?

Periodically one encounters the question of whether this or that topic or discipline is a science or not a science. This is a venerable problem that even has its own name (the demarcation problem) that I have written about extensively in the past (see my 2011 series of posts on the Logic of Science) and the consensus has been that it is impossible to specify both necessary and sufficient conditions that are necessary to do so. In most cases this inability to construct a strict demarcation rule does not really matter in any tangible way. After all, what does it matter what label you give something? But unfortunately it is the case that being considered ‘scientific’ adds a certain authority to statements, which is why people invoke it so frequently. [Read more…]

Forgive me for indulging in some schadenfreude

Almost from the moment that Sarah Palin was selected by John McCain as his running mate in 2008 and I saw how the crazies in the party seized upon her as one of them, I warned that this was a turning point for the Republican party and that McCain would bear the responsibility for creating a monster that would threaten to devour the party. As I wrote back in September 3, 2008:

I think that this decision is going to haunt McCain. His and her ardent supporters are trying to put on a good face and saying that this move is a ‘game changer’. I think they are right but not in a good way for him. It risks changing a narrow race into a blowout victory for Obama.

[Read more…]

The absurd debate over a potential Obama-Rouhani meeting

It looks like the possible meeting between president Obama and Iranian president Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings will not happen after all, apparently because it was “too complicated” for the Iranians.

But despite that setback, Stephen M. Walt makes the obvious point, that talking to foreign leaders whom one disagrees with should not be seen as so momentous. [Read more…]

We need more a inclusive label than ‘interfaith’ and ‘multi-faith’

My office recently received a flyer to advertise a program to combat violence. It was labeled as “Women of Faith: Voices Against Violence” and the program was described as a “Consciousness-Raising Multi-Faith Service and Ceremonial Walk Celebrating Women’s Power and Presence”.

The flyer described who was being invited to take part: “We are Baha’i, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hare Krishnas, Humanists, Muslims, Sikhs, Unitarian Universalists, and more.” And it had separate comprehensive lists for the various ethnicities and professions. [Read more…]

Taking stock of the Snowden revelations

Ever since the Edward Snowden NSA revelations exploded on the scene on June 6, we have been treated to one blockbuster story after another about how the US and UK governments in particular have been spying on practically the entire world and brazenly lying on a grand scale. As far as I know, even though a host of media outlets (The Guardian, Washington Post, Der Spiegel, TV Globo, New York Times, ProPublica) are co-operating in the publication of the 300 and more stories so far, only Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras are in possession of the entire dossier and they are being very deliberate in what they release and how. [Read more…]

What’s happening to Kentucky?

Kentucky is the home of the infamous Creation Museum, the famously ridiculous brainchild of Ken Ham that argues that the Earth is 6,000 years old and rejects any science that says otherwise. So one might be forgiven if one thinks of it as a religiously conservative state. But as I pointed out with my two earlier posts, the state Board of Education adopted a document outlining its new science standards that flatly goes counter to that image. [Read more…]