Religion and human nature
Locked
 
|
I highly recommend David Wilson's two books, THE DARWINIAN CATHEDRAL and EVOLUTION FOR EVERYONE. The writing is strong and clear (if a little smug) and he has the issues nailed down absolutely tight. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) > [Original Message] > From: <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Date: 11/1/2008 10:00:15 AM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 1 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > [hidden email] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [hidden email] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [hidden email] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Election: Why So Close (Tom Carter) > 2. Re: Election: Why So Close ([hidden email]) > 3. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) > 4. Re: Election: Why So Close (Marcus G. Daniels) > 5. Re: Election: Why So Close (Roger Critchlow) > 6. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) > 7. Re: Election: Why So Close (Steve Smith) > 8. Re: Election: Why So Close (Jochen Fromm) > 9. Re: Election: Why So Close (Russ Abbott) > 10. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) > 11. Re: Election: Why So Close (glen e. p. ropella) > 12. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) > 13. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) > 14. Re: Election: Why So Close (glen e. p. ropella) > 15. Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia Flash Player] > (Tom Johnson) > 16. Re: Election: Why So Close (Owen Densmore) > 17. Re: Election: Why So Close (Owen Densmore) > 18. Re: Election: Why So Close (Steve Smith) > 19. Re: Election: Why So Close (John Sadd) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:14:28 -0700 > From: Tom Carter <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; > DelSp="yes" > > Found in the responses to this article, a wonderful neologism: > > "It is always a pleasure to read George Monbiot's inciteful > analyses, even from beyond the Pond." > > inciteful !!!! Just perfect :-) > > tom > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Richard Harris wrote: > > > Saw an interesting article on this topic in the Guardian the other > > day. > > > > ama-bush-mccain > > > > Don't really know what to add. > > > > Rich > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/ced90ca b/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:20:16 -0400 > From: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: [hidden email] > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Greetings, all -- > > The Pauline Kael Syndrome affects all of us to a greater or lesser Yorker", famously commented in 1972, "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for > Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But > sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."). I am a bit of a cross-kenner, perhaps, in that as a finance guy who's a social progressive, I have sympathies on both sides -- as do most voters, I'd say. At the end of the day, however, I'm more confident in the kind of society a Democrat can offer than any other party. It's also worth noting that third-parties have never been successful in part because we in the US like clear winners - no "grand coalitions". The Perot '92 voters are McCain '08 voters, for the most part, and the Nader '00 voters are mostly Obama '08. > > Maybe the distribution really is along the lines that Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes -- there's the narrative fallacy (believing in your ability to recognize patterns where none exists) and confirmation bias (paying attention only to information that strengthens your argument). > > Our deplorable lack of awareness of the world around us may be a feature, not a bug. We live in such relative peace and prosperity that politics doesn't really affect us day in and day out. Indeed, there are many economists who argue that there's no need to vote, since your single vote is unlikely to affect the outcome of an election. Of course, we in the sparsely poplulated West know better, and besides, there's a greater civic duty/social contract idea behind being a responsible citizen. That's the message of all the ads on MTV to get out the youth vote, and maybe it will work this time, but it's hard to force people. Citizens in South Africa and Iraq and Gaza have much more to gain, it seems, from participating in elections than we do. That neglects, however, the hard-won right to vote that our ancestors vouchsafed for us. We owe it to them as much as ourselves to make our voices heard. > > Like Owen and Doug, I'd like voters to be more intelligent, but I'll settle for their being less ignorant. > > - Claiborne - > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 1:35 pm > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > > > > > > > > > > I can't resist: > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter <[hidden email]> > > > [...] Democrats tend to have at least a little trouble flat out lying . . .? > > > Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, wouldn't it? > > ;-} > > > One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered.? Its echos are still reverberating. > > > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > [hidden email] > [hidden email] > > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 8/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:37:25 -0600 > From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Nicely said, Claiborne. > > At some level a certain degree of naivete is charming, perhaps even > forgivable. On the other hand, stubborn attachment to an ivory tower > whitewashed notion about the noble human nature, combined with sympathies > for the "poor, downtrodden, uneducated, unwashed masses" is pretty > hypocritical. > > If you have trouble believing that stupidity, racism, and just plain > ugliness are not a very large part of the human equation, and in fact are > the major drivers behind much of the flavor of our social network > interactions (I just threw that last bit in to appeal to the more academic > amongst us), take a quick glance at politics in the Democratic Republic of > The Congo: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27472662#27472662 > > What are the similarities between their two-party system and ours? Tutsi > vs. Hutu, Republican vs. Democrat. A primary strategy employed in either > case is for each party to demonize the other. The primary difference > between their style of politics and ours is that they use real bullets and > machetes to "prove" who's right. > > Myself, I'd be happy with less ignorance, but I'd settle for more > intelligence. > > --Doug > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:20 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Greetings, all -- > > > > The Pauline Kael Syndrome affects all of us to a greater or lesser > > I suppose (you may recall that Ms. Kael, film critic for "The New Yorker", > > famously commented in 1972, "I live in a rather special world. I only know > > one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside > > my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."). I am a bit > > of a cross-kenner, perhaps, in that as a finance guy who's a social > > progressive, I have sympathies on both sides -- as do most voters, I'd say. > > At the end of the day, however, I'm more confident in the kind of society a > > Democrat can offer than any other party. It's also worth noting that > > third-parties have never been successful in part because we in the US like > > clear winners - no "grand coalitions". The Perot '92 voters are McCain '08 > > voters, for the most part, and the Nader '00 voters are mostly Obama '08. > > > > Maybe the distribution really is along the lines that Nassim Nicholas Taleb > > describes -- there's the narrative fallacy (believing in your ability to > > recognize patterns where none exists) and confirmation bias (paying > > attention only to information that strengthens your argument). > > > > Our deplorable lack of awareness of the world around us may be a feature, > > not a bug. We live in such relative peace and prosperity that politics > > doesn't really affect us day in and day out. Indeed, there are many > > economists who argue that there's no need to vote, since your single vote is > > unlikely to affect the outcome of an election. Of course, we in the sparsely > > poplulated West know better, and besides, there's a greater civic > > duty/social contract idea behind being a responsible citizen. That's the > > message of all the ads on MTV to get out the youth vote, and maybe it will > > work this time, but it's hard to force people. Citizens in South Africa and > > Iraq and Gaza have much more to gain, it seems, from participating in > > elections than we do. That neglects, however, the hard-won right to vote > > that our ancestors vouchsafed for us. We owe it to them as much as ourselves > > to make our voices heard. > > > > Like Owen and Doug, I'd like voters to be more intelligent, but I'll settle > > for their being less ignorant. > > > > - Claiborne - > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > > Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 1:35 pm > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > > > > I can't resist: > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter <[hidden email]>wrote: > > > >> [...] Democrats tend to have at least a little trouble flat out lying . . > >> . > > > > > > *Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, > > wouldn't it?* > > > > ;-} > > > > One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are still > > reverberating. > > > > -- > > Doug Roberts, RTI International > > [hidden email] > > [hidden email] > > 505-455-7333 - Office > > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > McCain or Obama? Stay up to date on the latest from the campaign trail > > AOL News<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212075880x1200752631/aol?redir =http://news.aol.com/elections?ncid=emlcntusnews00000001>. > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > [hidden email] > [hidden email] > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 2/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:47:29 -0600 > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Isn't the so-called Flynn Effect still considered true? Is there more > recent data for the U.S. (besides Bush being elected twice) that says > otherwise? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:04:39 -0600 > From: "Roger Critchlow" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Responding to the original question, I'd say it's close because there > isn't that much difference. > > Yes, the differences are striking when you highlight them and state them as > the opposing parties want them stated. But the similarities far outweigh > the differences. > > Which is why Palin can pursue socialist policies in Alaska and accuse Obama > of more socialist leanings without blushing. Or maybe she does blush, but > her makeup technician has it under control. > > And while the Republicans did invade Iraq causing untold suffering, the > Democrats were pursuing a regime change policy in the Clinton years through > blockade and no-fly enforcement which also caused untold suffering, if I > remember what Amy Goodman's guests were saying way back then. > > As for spying on American citizens, well, J Edgar Hoover served as FBI > director under 6 presidents, 4 democrats and 2 republicans. But that makes > it sound too close, it was 11 years under republicans and 26 years under > democrats. That wasn't all so long ago. Adding in the 11 years that Hoover > served as the BI director before the FBI was established (under FDR), the > presidents go to 4 and 4, while the democrats still have the edge in years > 28 to 19. > > The funny thing I discovered was that Hoover was the technocrat president: > "Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency > Movement<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_Movement>(a major > component of the Progressive > Era <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era>), arguing that a > technical solution existed for every social and economic problem." But > didn't save him when the bottom fell out of the economy. > > Which leads to why the Republicrats and the Democans are so similar -- there > haven't been many "new" ideas in the last century, and they've converged on > the consensus view of the "old" issues: slavery = bad, universal suffrage = > good, socialism = in moderation, military imperialism = bad, racial > segregation = bad, politcal corruption = bad, and so on. > > So while Glen may worry about being branded, tarred and feathered for his > skepticism of universal healthcare, he will not argue that someone should > thrown out of the hospital to die on the sidewalk for lack of health > insurance. He just wants the bill to get paid without making a political > issue or institution or scandal out of it. We don't believe in letting > people die for lack of health care, but we're unclear how to make it so. > > And I don' t think that either party has any advantage on stupidity or > ignorance, but it wouldn't change anything if one did: stupid, ignorant > people can make brilliant decisions; smart, educated people can make > horrible decisions. > > (The google ads on this thread are impressive, looks like Ron Paul wants > go bimetallic.) > > > -- rec -- > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/fb66fb8 8/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:05:41 -0600 > From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > It it were a linear effect over time, then back around the year 0 BC the > human populace would have all been flaunting IQs of approximately -500. > > No wonder Christianity was such an easy sell. > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Marcus G. Daniels > > > Isn't the so-called Flynn Effect still considered true? Is there more > > recent data for the U.S. (besides Bush being elected twice) that says > > otherwise? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > [hidden email] > [hidden email] > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 8/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:38 -0600 > From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Doug > > > > */Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, > > wouldn't it?/* > > > > ;-} > > > > One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are > > still reverberating. > Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie, caught > like a deer in the headlights. > > I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II even > more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid answer) > was totally inappropriate (but hugely effective). > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:17:06 +0100 > From: "Jochen Fromm" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <E1184D93DEDF4BBAB9AF8DE2E87EF5CD@Toshiba> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=response > > Maybe it has to be close, because the media wants > it to be close. It has to be an exciting event > and a big show. The media wants to make lots of > money with it. It is like the Formula 1: if the > races are not exciting enough, simply the rules > are changed or the drivers are exchanged. > > Why is always a hype in the media about elections, > although nobody questions the election system iself > (the long-winded two-party presidential election > system in the USA, for example)? Why does nobody > ask if the candidates need to spend an ridiculous > amount of money on campaigning and marketing? > > One reason is perhaps that the media itself is > intricately involved in the process. The media > needs to hold up the feedback illusion in the > election ritual for the common voter: the > satisfying feeling for each single voter that > he/she has any real influence. The price for > the voter is high: the feeling is only an illusion > driven by commercial interests. Think of all the > money the media can make with advertising and > the high viewer levels during elections. > > To question the election process would mean to > question the role of the media. The media does > not only present the result, it also takes part > in creating it. The decisions of the people is > determined by the collective consciousness: the > content of the major newspapers, journals and > TV stations. The candidates and the media > need each other. The more the candidates appear > in the media, the more famous they become, and > the more famous they are, the more they appear in > the media if they are unusual: a self-reinforcing > process. > > -J. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:02:47 -0700 > From: "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > This thread (and the reference to the column by George > tion-obama-bush-mccain>t, > prompted me to post the following on my blog<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/> > . > > *Is religion good or bad?* > > Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked, people > usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do in the name > of religion?e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades (bad). > > But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in The > Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-el ection-obama-bush-mccain>reminded > me why, in general, I think religion is bad: at > its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason. > > One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage people not > to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to incorrect > conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance with them > if they are open to the idea that one should think things through. Religion > closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a perspective in > which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what?because it is God's > will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some particular > position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is with the > idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is "God's will" > or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let themselves off > the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions. > > It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do whatever one's > religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or not. But the > problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that sort of > behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings of a > faith-based religion is mindless faith. > > I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about this. A > country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so meek) > followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a backwater of > ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this country, and > I hate it for that. > > -- Russ Abbott > _____________________________________________ > Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Doug > > > >> > >> */Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, > >> wouldn't it?/* > >> > >> ;-} > >> > >> One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are > >> reverberating. > >> > > Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie, caught > > like a deer in the headlights. > > > > I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II even > > more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid answer) was > > totally inappropriate (but hugely effective). > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 9/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:48:26 -0600 > From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: [hidden email], "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Unfortunately, part of the process of subscribing to a fundamentalist > religion entails checking your brain in at the door. In spite of this > requirement, I've encountered more than one brainwashed fundamentalist who > was damned clever at avoiding logic in favor of dogma. > > The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use religion hide > from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for > themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions and all of the bigotry, > closed-mindedness, and anti-intellectualism that goes with that particular > lifestyle preference.* > > --Doug > > > **Note that not once did I use the word "stupid" in expressing my opinions > regarding fundamentalism. Nor, did I attempt to characterize > fundamentalists as weak, cowardly, or bigoted. Oops, I did use "bigotry". > Oh, what the fuck. Fundamentalists *are* stupid. AND weak. AND cowardly. > And, before the list moderator comes down on me: It's not my fault. THEY > started this thread!!* > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> > > > This thread (and the reference to the column by George Monbio<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-elec tion-obama-bush-mccain>t, > > prompted me to post the following on my blog<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/> > > . > > > > *Is religion good or bad?* > > > > Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked, people > > usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do in the name > > of religion?e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades (bad). > > > > But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in The > > Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-el ection-obama-bush-mccain>reminded me why, in general, I think religion is bad: at > > its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason. > > > > One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage people not > > to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to incorrect > > conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance with them > > if they are open to the idea that one should think things through. Religion > > closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a perspective in > > which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what?because it is God's > > will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some particular > > position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is with the > > idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is "God's will" > > or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let themselves off > > the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions. > > > > It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do whatever one's > > religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or not. But the > > problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that sort of > > behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings of a > > faith-based religion is mindless faith. > > > > I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about this. A > > country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so meek) > > followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a backwater of > > ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this country, and > > I hate it for that. > > > > -- Russ Abbott > > _____________________________________________ > > Professor, Computer Science > > California State University, Los Angeles > > o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Doug > >> > >>> > >>> */Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, > >>> wouldn't it?/* > >>> > >>> ;-} > >>> > >>> One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are > >>> still reverberating. > >>> > >> Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie, > >> like a deer in the headlights. > >> > >> I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II even > >> more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid answer) was > >> totally inappropriate (but hugely effective). > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > >> > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 5/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:08:44 -0700 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 04:48 PM: > > The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use religion hide > > from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for > > themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions > > Excellent! Now we may get closer to the truth. Humans (and their > psychological, biological, sociological, etc. constitution) _causes_ > fundamentalist religions, not vice versa. (though there will obviously > be reinforcing global forces when fundamentalism is the dominant context > that feed back onto the causes, but fundamentalism re-emerges so often > that I'd claim the feedback is weaker than the first order causes) > > Now that we have the directionality of that causal relationship > straight, we can begin talking about the constitution of humans, i.e. > the causes, rather than religion, which is merely the symptom. > > What is it about humans and their context that gives rise to the need > for habit, ritual, dogma, "instinct", and un/subconscious > stimulus-reaction processes? And when do things like habit prove > beneficial versus detrimental? > > It's quite clear that when, say, riding a bicycle or hitting a baseball, > ritual and habit reign. But when, say, voting or playing Go, it's > better to spend a large amount of time thinking. Mixed circumstances, > e.g. wielding an automatic rifle in the middle of Iraq, will obviously > present a complex problem that has to be solved with part habit and part > thought. > > Are there any generic (abstracted) properties of circumstances where > habit is clearly best ... or where in-depth analysis is clearly best? > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:15:30 -0600 > From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Glen, > > It is if you are my shill, sitting out there in the audience amongst all > rubes. > > See my post immediately following... > > --Doug > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:08 PM, glen e. p. ropella > <[hidden email]>wrote: > > > Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 04:48 PM: > > > The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use religion > > > from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for > > > themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions > > > > Excellent! Now we may get closer to the truth. Humans (and their > > psychological, biological, sociological, etc. constitution) _causes_ > > fundamentalist religions, not vice versa. (though there will obviously > > be reinforcing global forces when fundamentalism is the dominant context > > that feed back onto the causes, but fundamentalism re-emerges so often > > that I'd claim the feedback is weaker than the first order causes) > > > > Now that we have the directionality of that causal relationship > > straight, we can begin talking about the constitution of humans, i.e. > > the causes, rather than religion, which is merely the symptom. > > > > What is it about humans and their context that gives rise to the need > > for habit, ritual, dogma, "instinct", and un/subconscious > > stimulus-reaction processes? And when do things like habit prove > > beneficial versus detrimental? > > > > It's quite clear that when, say, riding a bicycle or hitting a baseball, > > ritual and habit reign. But when, say, voting or playing Go, it's > > better to spend a large amount of time thinking. Mixed circumstances, > > e.g. wielding an automatic rifle in the middle of Iraq, will obviously > > present a complex problem that has to be solved with part habit and part > > thought. > > > > Are there any generic (abstracted) properties of circumstances where > > habit is clearly best ... or where in-depth analysis is clearly best? > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > [hidden email] > [hidden email] > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: c/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:16:44 -0600 > From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: [hidden email], "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Like a dog returning his own vomit, I can't seem to distance myself from > this thread. One last contribution (hopefully). In one my circles of > friends -- using the term somewhat loosely -- there is a cluster of > Democrats and one lonely, besieged Republican. Naturally, the > between us have frequently devolved, using words like "stupid", and > "DemoCRAP", and "ReFUCKINGPublican". After one particularly heated > conversation where the lone Republican admitted, after incessant badgering > from the rest of us (ok, from me), that he still *liked* Bush. I > contemplated his admission for a day or two, and then responded with the > following: > > *I had a small epiphany Friday evening. There was a Los Alamos Hill > Topper's home football game this last Friday, and the LA high school band > was out of town at some kind of competition. Because of this, the high > school had asked one of the bands that I'm in, the "HillStompers" to play > the game instead. We said, "Sure." > > So, at 6:30pm we ambled in, and took our seats in the Sullivan Field stadium > where the HS band usually sits. Immediately, a Down's Syndrome boy came > over and told us we had to leave, because that is where the high school band > sat. Our band leader tried to explain that we were the substitute band for > the evening. > > He remained unconvinced for the entire evening. > > The epiphany: Stupid people don't recognize that they are stupid. > Seemingly, this applies to any level of stupidity. Bush's level, Palin's > level, XXXXX's* level, Down's Syndrome, your level, my level -- it doesn't > matter. Stupid people are convinced that no matter who says differently, > they are right. You can waste your breath trying to convince them otherwise > if you so choose, but you will have succeeded in exactly that: wasting your > breath. > > Which in itself is a pretty stupid thing to do.* > > * XXXXX is, of course, the beseiged Republican > > --Doug > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > This thread (and the reference to the column by George Monbio<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-elec tion-obama-bush-mccain>t, > > prompted me to post the following on my blog<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/> > > . > > > > *Is religion good or bad?* > > > > Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked, people > > usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do in the name > > of religion?e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades (bad). > > > > But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in The > > Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-el ection-obama-bush-mccain>reminded me why, in general, I think religion is bad: at > > its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason. > > > > One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage people not > > to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to incorrect > > conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance with them > > if they are open to the idea that one should think things through. Religion > > closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a perspective in > > which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what?because it is God's > > will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some particular > > position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is with the > > idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is "God's will" > > or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let themselves off > > the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions. > > > > It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do whatever one's > > religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or not. But the > > problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that sort of > > behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings of a > > faith-based religion is mindless faith. > > > > I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about this. A > > country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so meek) > > followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a backwater of > > ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this country, and > > I hate it for that. > > > > -- Russ Abbott > > _____________________________________________ > > Professor, Computer Science > > California State University, Los Angeles > > o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Doug > >> > >>> > >>> */Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, > >>> wouldn't it?/* > >>> > >>> ;-} > >>> > >>> One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are > >>> still reverberating. > >>> > >> Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie, > >> like a deer in the headlights. > >> > >> I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II even > >> more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid answer) was > >> totally inappropriate (but hugely effective). > >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/281b5cc 3/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:59:27 -0700 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 05:15 PM: > > It is if you are my shill, sitting out there in the audience amongst > > rubes. > > I live to serve! > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:10:10 -0600 > From: "Tom Johnson" <[hidden email]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia Flash > Player] > To: "Friam@redfish. com" <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > >From the Internet Scout.... > > > > *Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia Flash Player]* > > http://www.maa.org/news/102308charney.html > > The Mathematical Association of America (MAA) continues to build on their > already solid online presence with the addition of this lecture by noted > mathematician and scholar Professor Ruth Charney. This particular lecture > was given at the MAA's Carriage House Conference Center in the fall of > and it deals with how cubes can be used to represent a variety of systems. > As Charney notes, "The geometry of these spaces is strange, complicated, and > a lot of fun to study." Visitors to the site can watch several particularly > lucid examples from Charney's talk, read her biography, and also read a > detailed interview with her conducted by Michael Pearson. > [KMG]<https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&view=page&name=gp&ver=sh3fib53pgpk# 11d532fd493691f2_team> > > tj > ========================================== > J. T. Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > www.analyticjournalism.com > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) > http://www.jtjohnson.com [hidden email] > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. > To change something, build a new model that makes the > existing model obsolete." > -- Buckminster Fuller > ========================================== > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 0/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 16 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:30:43 -0600 > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > People: I'm thinking Freakonomics here. Statistics. Human behavior > patterns. You know, Science! > > Thus far I've heard only rants on religion, stupidity, and probably > bad spelling. > > Is there *any* reason for the close vote (especially in the 2000 2004 > 2008 elections). > > Here are a few possibilities: > - Parties form attractors. > - Classism. > - Single Issue voters. > - Marketing to a tie. > - The Central Limit Theorem. > > This is especially interesting seeing how the rest of the world is so > *hugely* for Obama. What's different about us? And don't tell me > Europeans are smarter than us, they aren't. Different, yes. But they > elect assholes as often as we do. > > I heard an interesting talk about how historians look at this: > http://radioopensource.org/a-longer-view-of-2008-historian-gordon-wood/ > One of his points is that: "I think that all of these candidates will > find that they have been carried along by forces that they can > scarcely understand." > > -- Owen > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 17 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:50:18 -0600 > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Hmm..this may be spot-on. > > -- Owen > > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Richard Harris wrote: > > > Saw an interesting article on this topic in the Guardian the other > > day. > > > > ama-bush-mccain > > > > Don't really know what to add. > > > > Rich > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 18 > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:12:42 -0600 > From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: a/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 19 > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:51:33 -0600 > From: John Sadd <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Tom, of course the question "Why isn't Obama white?" is perfectly > valid. Most of us supposedly enlightened types would like to think > that we all agree that, especially in a world where intermingling of a > genetic nature among traditional genetic groups has made the notion of > "race" fairly undefinable, it is of course not yet irrelevant. There > are presumably genetic reasons why the children of mixed-race > marriages between "Caucasians" and descendents of sub-Saharan > Africans tend on average to preserve more of the physical traits of > their African heritage, which contributes to our ease of identifying a > Barack Obama as "black", without qualification. But our own sordid > history as a nation of course also contributes to how we tend to > identify people. (And how interesting it is that all the false reports > of Obama being a closet Muslim -- and the assumptions that that would > make him a terrorist by association -- seem to have trumped at least > public debates about his being black. I suppose it's just that the > rumor-mongers know that they have to be more careful about racial > epithets than non-American-standard religious ones.) > > Another couple of interesting data points (recognizing that I'm > getting wildly off-topic here): My wife, who somewhat to her chagrin > is descended from a number of prominent slave-owning southerners, is > reading the book The Hemingses of Monticello, which sounds > fascinating. Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings was of > course no aberration. I think one of the basic tenets of the book > (which I haven't read yet) is that basically everybody on the > plantation was related, and they all knew it. If I remember > correctly, Sally Hemings was a blood relative of Jefferson's wife. So > we have a long tradition of carefully identifying the children of > (typically) the rape of a black (slave) woman by a white man as black, > so that they could clearly be identified as slaves. > > (Interesting point of comparison -- continuing wildly off-topic): > White Australians discovered that the distinctive physical traits of > aborigines tend to disappear much more quickly on average when they > intermarry or otherwise mix genes with whites, maybe because the > original gene pool of those aboriginal settlers must have been pretty > small. So the Australian government took exactly the opposite tack of > our own nation, and went through a period --shockingly recent -- of > kidnapping young aboriginal children from their families, raising them > in their equivalent of Indian schools, and encouraging poor whites to > marry them, in effect to wash away the aboriginal blood. If you > haven't seen it, rent the wonderful Australian film Rabbit-Proof Fence > on this subject. > > While I'm in book review mode, I am reading Paul Krugman's excellent > book The Conscience of a Liberal, which I highly recommend to anyone > trying to figure out how to save "liberal" from being a dirty word. > > Enough. > > john > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter wrote: > > > All - > > > > I'm not singling out John for this comment, but just using it as a > > trigger . . . > > > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:45 AM, John Sadd wrote: > > > >> it is totally effing amazing that a black man > > > > which raises the question, "Why isn't Obama white?" > > > > If that question sounds silly to you, think a little about how > > deeply you and I and everyone seem to have internalized the "Jim > > Crow one drop rule" (i.e., one drop of "black" blood makes you > > black . . .). > > > > Part of the trouble is that we're all "willfully ignorant" in our > > own ways, it's just hard to notice our own . . . > > > > But back to Owen's question . . . I'd say that the Republicans > > have really gotten on board with the idea that it's OK to say and do > > *anything* to get elected. In my experience, Democrats tend to have > > at least a little trouble flat out lying . . . > > > > I often play the "projection" game when I listen to political > > rhetoric -- i.e., if they accuse their opponents of something, it's > > probably because they know that's what they'd do (or are doing). A > > few examples: McCain says "Obama will say anything to get > > elected" (charge doesn't really apply to Obama, but certainly does > > to McCain). McCain/Palin say "Obama is a socialist" (Palin is > > popular in Alaska because she increased taxes on the rich > > (corporations) and gave the money directly to ordinary people, no > > strings attached). McCain says "Obama wants to `spread the wealth > > around'" -- meaning, he wants you to believe, take money from some > > people and give it to others (he, and rich Republicans, are all for > > it, as long as what you mean is, take $700 billion from ordinary > > people and give it to financial institutions . . .) > > > > Oh, well . . . > > > > tom > > > > p.s. On the "Why isn't Obama white?" question: > > > > w=why+isn%27t+obama+white&sn=003&sc=242 > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > [hidden email] > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 1 > ************************************ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
To which of the 19 emails you forwarded do you refer?
-- Owen On Nov 1, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > I highly recommend David Wilson's two books, THE DARWINIAN CATHEDRAL > and > EVOLUTION FOR EVERYONE. > > The writing is strong and clear (if a little smug) and he has the > issues > nailed down absolutely tight. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]) > >> [Original Message] >> From: <[hidden email]> >> To: <[hidden email]> >> Date: 11/1/2008 10:00:15 AM >> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 1 >> >> Send Friam mailing list submissions to >> [hidden email] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [hidden email] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [hidden email] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Election: Why So Close (Tom Carter) >> 2. Re: Election: Why So Close ([hidden email]) >> 3. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >> 4. Re: Election: Why So Close (Marcus G. Daniels) >> 5. Re: Election: Why So Close (Roger Critchlow) >> 6. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >> 7. Re: Election: Why So Close (Steve Smith) >> 8. Re: Election: Why So Close (Jochen Fromm) >> 9. Re: Election: Why So Close (Russ Abbott) >> 10. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >> 11. Re: Election: Why So Close (glen e. p. ropella) >> 12. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >> 13. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >> 14. Re: Election: Why So Close (glen e. p. ropella) >> 15. Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia Flash Player] >> (Tom Johnson) >> 16. Re: Election: Why So Close (Owen Densmore) >> 17. Re: Election: Why So Close (Owen Densmore) >> 18. Re: Election: Why So Close (Steve Smith) >> 19. Re: Election: Why So Close (John Sadd) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:14:28 -0700 >> From: Tom Carter <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <D945A810-7ED1-41F4-AB33- >> [hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; >> DelSp="yes" >> >> Found in the responses to this article, a wonderful neologism: >> >> "It is always a pleasure to read George Monbiot's inciteful >> analyses, even from beyond the Pond." >> >> inciteful !!!! Just perfect :-) >> >> tom >> >> On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Richard Harris wrote: >> >>> Saw an interesting article on this topic in the Guardian the other >>> day. >>> >>> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-election-ob > ama-bush-mccain >>> >>> Don't really know what to add. >>> >>> Rich >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/ced90ca > b/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:20:16 -0400 >> From: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: [hidden email] >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> >> Greetings, all -- >> >> The Pauline Kael Syndrome affects all of us to a greater or lesser > extent, I suppose (you may recall that Ms. Kael, film critic for > "The New > Yorker", famously commented in 1972, "I live in a rather special > world. I > only know one person who voted for >> Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But >> sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."). I am a bit of a > cross-kenner, perhaps, in that as a finance guy who's a social > progressive, > I have sympathies on both sides -- as do most voters, I'd say. At > the end > of the day, however, I'm more confident in the kind of society a > Democrat > can offer than any other party. It's also worth noting that third- > parties > have never been successful in part because we in the US like clear > winners > - no "grand coalitions". The Perot '92 voters are McCain '08 voters, > for > the most part, and the Nader '00 voters are mostly Obama '08. >> >> Maybe the distribution really is along the lines that Nassim Nicholas > Taleb describes -- there's the narrative fallacy (believing in your > ability > to recognize patterns where none exists) and confirmation bias (paying > attention only to information that strengthens your argument). >> >> Our deplorable lack of awareness of the world around us may be a >> feature, > not a bug. We live in such relative peace and prosperity that politics > doesn't really affect us day in and day out. Indeed, there are many > economists who argue that there's no need to vote, since your single > vote > is unlikely to affect the outcome of an election. Of course, we in the > sparsely poplulated West know better, and besides, there's a greater > civic > duty/social contract idea behind being a responsible citizen. That's > the > message of all the ads on MTV to get out the youth vote, and maybe > it will > work this time, but it's hard to force people. Citizens in South > Africa and > Iraq and Gaza have much more to gain, it seems, from participating in > elections than we do. That neglects, however, the hard-won right to > vote > that our ancestors vouchsafed for us. We owe it to them as much as > ourselves to make our voices heard. >> >> Like Owen and Doug, I'd like voters to be more intelligent, but I'll > settle for their being less ignorant. >> >> - Claiborne - >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email] >> > >> Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 1:35 pm >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I can't resist: >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >> >> [...] Democrats tend to have at least a little trouble flat out >> lying . . > .? >> >> >> Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, > wouldn't it? >> >> ;-} >> >> >> One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered.? Its echos are > still reverberating. >> >> >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts, RTI International >> [hidden email] >> [hidden email] >> >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/13aa6f3 > 8/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:37:25 -0600 >> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Nicely said, Claiborne. >> >> At some level a certain degree of naivete is charming, perhaps even >> forgivable. On the other hand, stubborn attachment to an ivory tower >> whitewashed notion about the noble human nature, combined with >> sympathies >> for the "poor, downtrodden, uneducated, unwashed masses" is pretty >> hypocritical. >> >> If you have trouble believing that stupidity, racism, and just plain >> ugliness are not a very large part of the human equation, and in >> fact are >> the major drivers behind much of the flavor of our social network >> interactions (I just threw that last bit in to appeal to the more >> academic >> amongst us), take a quick glance at politics in the Democratic >> Republic of >> The Congo: >> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27472662#27472662 >> >> What are the similarities between their two-party system and ours? >> Tutsi >> vs. Hutu, Republican vs. Democrat. A primary strategy employed in >> either >> case is for each party to demonize the other. The primary difference >> between their style of politics and ours is that they use real >> bullets and >> machetes to "prove" who's right. >> >> Myself, I'd be happy with less ignorance, but I'd settle for more >> intelligence. >> >> --Doug >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:20 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Greetings, all -- >>> >>> The Pauline Kael Syndrome affects all of us to a greater or lesser > extent, >>> I suppose (you may recall that Ms. Kael, film critic for "The New > Yorker", >>> famously commented in 1972, "I live in a rather special world. I >>> only > know >>> one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're > outside >>> my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."). I >>> am a > bit >>> of a cross-kenner, perhaps, in that as a finance guy who's a social >>> progressive, I have sympathies on both sides -- as do most voters, >>> I'd > say. >>> At the end of the day, however, I'm more confident in the kind of > society a >>> Democrat can offer than any other party. It's also worth noting that >>> third-parties have never been successful in part because we in the >>> US > like >>> clear winners - no "grand coalitions". The Perot '92 voters are >>> McCain > '08 >>> voters, for the most part, and the Nader '00 voters are mostly Obama > '08. >>> >>> Maybe the distribution really is along the lines that Nassim >>> Nicholas > Taleb >>> describes -- there's the narrative fallacy (believing in your >>> ability to >>> recognize patterns where none exists) and confirmation bias (paying >>> attention only to information that strengthens your argument). >>> >>> Our deplorable lack of awareness of the world around us may be a > feature, >>> not a bug. We live in such relative peace and prosperity that >>> politics >>> doesn't really affect us day in and day out. Indeed, there are many >>> economists who argue that there's no need to vote, since your single > vote is >>> unlikely to affect the outcome of an election. Of course, we in the > sparsely >>> poplulated West know better, and besides, there's a greater civic >>> duty/social contract idea behind being a responsible citizen. >>> That's the >>> message of all the ads on MTV to get out the youth vote, and maybe >>> it > will >>> work this time, but it's hard to force people. Citizens in South >>> Africa > and >>> Iraq and Gaza have much more to gain, it seems, from participating >>> in >>> elections than we do. That neglects, however, the hard-won right >>> to vote >>> that our ancestors vouchsafed for us. We owe it to them as much as > ourselves >>> to make our voices heard. >>> >>> Like Owen and Doug, I'd like voters to be more intelligent, but I'll > settle >>> for their being less ignorant. >>> >>> - Claiborne - >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[hidden email]> >>> Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 1:35 pm >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >>> >>> I can't resist: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter > <[hidden email]>wrote: >>> >>>> [...] Democrats tend to have at least a little trouble flat out >>>> lying > . . >>>> . >>> >>> >>> *Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, >>> wouldn't it?* >>> >>> ;-} >>> >>> One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are > still >>> reverberating. >>> >>> -- >>> Doug Roberts, RTI International >>> [hidden email] >>> [hidden email] >>> 505-455-7333 - Office >>> 505-670-8195 - Cell >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> McCain or Obama? Stay up to date on the latest from the campaign >>> trail > with >>> AOL > News<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212075880x1200752631/aol?redir > =http://news.aol.com/elections?ncid=emlcntusnews00000001>. >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts, RTI International >> [hidden email] >> [hidden email] >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/510399b > 2/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:47:29 -0600 >> From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Isn't the so-called Flynn Effect still considered true? Is there >> more >> recent data for the U.S. (besides Bush being elected twice) that says >> otherwise? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:04:39 -0600 >> From: "Roger Critchlow" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Responding to the original question, I'd say it's close because there > really >> isn't that much difference. >> >> Yes, the differences are striking when you highlight them and state >> them > as >> the opposing parties want them stated. But the similarities far >> outweigh >> the differences. >> >> Which is why Palin can pursue socialist policies in Alaska and accuse > Obama >> of more socialist leanings without blushing. Or maybe she does >> blush, but >> her makeup technician has it under control. >> >> And while the Republicans did invade Iraq causing untold suffering, >> the >> Democrats were pursuing a regime change policy in the Clinton years > through >> blockade and no-fly enforcement which also caused untold suffering, >> if I >> remember what Amy Goodman's guests were saying way back then. >> >> As for spying on American citizens, well, J Edgar Hoover served as >> FBI >> director under 6 presidents, 4 democrats and 2 republicans. But that > makes >> it sound too close, it was 11 years under republicans and 26 years >> under >> democrats. That wasn't all so long ago. Adding in the 11 years that > Hoover >> served as the BI director before the FBI was established (under >> FDR), the >> presidents go to 4 and 4, while the democrats still have the edge >> in years >> 28 to 19. >> >> The funny thing I discovered was that Hoover was the technocrat >> president: >> "Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency >> Movement<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_Movement>(a major >> component of the Progressive >> Era <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era>), arguing that a >> technical solution existed for every social and economic problem." >> But > that >> didn't save him when the bottom fell out of the economy. >> >> Which leads to why the Republicrats and the Democans are so similar >> -- > there >> haven't been many "new" ideas in the last century, and they've >> converged > on >> the consensus view of the "old" issues: slavery = bad, universal > suffrage = >> good, socialism = in moderation, military imperialism = bad, racial >> segregation = bad, politcal corruption = bad, and so on. >> >> So while Glen may worry about being branded, tarred and feathered >> for his >> skepticism of universal healthcare, he will not argue that someone >> should >> thrown out of the hospital to die on the sidewalk for lack of health >> insurance. He just wants the bill to get paid without making a >> political >> issue or institution or scandal out of it. We don't believe in >> letting >> people die for lack of health care, but we're unclear how to make >> it so. >> >> And I don' t think that either party has any advantage on stupidity >> or >> ignorance, but it wouldn't change anything if one did: stupid, >> ignorant >> people can make brilliant decisions; smart, educated people can make >> horrible decisions. >> >> (The google ads on this thread are impressive, looks like Ron Paul >> wants > to >> go bimetallic.) >> >> >> -- rec -- >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/fb66fb8 > 8/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:05:41 -0600 >> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> It it were a linear effect over time, then back around the year 0 >> BC the >> human populace would have all been flaunting IQs of approximately >> -500. >> >> No wonder Christianity was such an easy sell. >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Marcus G. Daniels > <[hidden email]>wrote: >> >>> Isn't the so-called Flynn Effect still considered true? Is there >>> more >>> recent data for the U.S. (besides Bush being elected twice) that >>> says >>> otherwise? >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts, RTI International >> [hidden email] >> [hidden email] >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/708964c > 8/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:38 -0600 >> From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Doug >>> >>> */Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" >>> is, >>> wouldn't it?/* >>> >>> ;-} >>> >>> One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are >>> still reverberating. >> Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie, >> caught >> like a deer in the headlights. >> >> I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II >> even >> more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid >> answer) >> was totally inappropriate (but hugely effective). >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:17:06 +0100 >> From: "Jochen Fromm" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <E1184D93DEDF4BBAB9AF8DE2E87EF5CD@Toshiba> >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >> reply-type=response >> >> Maybe it has to be close, because the media wants >> it to be close. It has to be an exciting event >> and a big show. The media wants to make lots of >> money with it. It is like the Formula 1: if the >> races are not exciting enough, simply the rules >> are changed or the drivers are exchanged. >> >> Why is always a hype in the media about elections, >> although nobody questions the election system iself >> (the long-winded two-party presidential election >> system in the USA, for example)? Why does nobody >> ask if the candidates need to spend an ridiculous >> amount of money on campaigning and marketing? >> >> One reason is perhaps that the media itself is >> intricately involved in the process. The media >> needs to hold up the feedback illusion in the >> election ritual for the common voter: the >> satisfying feeling for each single voter that >> he/she has any real influence. The price for >> the voter is high: the feeling is only an illusion >> driven by commercial interests. Think of all the >> money the media can make with advertising and >> the high viewer levels during elections. >> >> To question the election process would mean to >> question the role of the media. The media does >> not only present the result, it also takes part >> in creating it. The decisions of the people is >> determined by the collective consciousness: the >> content of the major newspapers, journals and >> TV stations. The candidates and the media >> need each other. The more the candidates appear >> in the media, the more famous they become, and >> the more famous they are, the more they appear in >> the media if they are unusual: a self-reinforcing >> process. >> >> -J. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 9 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:02:47 -0700 >> From: "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >> >> This thread (and the reference to the column by George >> > Monbio<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-elec > tion-obama-bush-mccain>t, >> prompted me to post the following on my > blog<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/> >> . >> >> *Is religion good or bad?* >> >> Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked, >> people >> usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do in >> the > name >> of religion?e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades > (bad). >> >> But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in The >> > Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-el > ection-obama-bush-mccain>reminded >> me why, in general, I think religion is bad: at >> its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason. >> >> One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage >> people > not >> to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to >> incorrect >> conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance >> with > them >> if they are open to the idea that one should think things through. > Religion >> closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a >> perspective in >> which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what?because it >> is God's >> will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some >> particular >> position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is >> with > the >> idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is >> "God's will" >> or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let >> themselves off >> the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and >> decisions. >> >> It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do whatever > one's >> religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or not. >> But > the >> problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that >> sort of >> behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings >> of a >> faith-based religion is mindless faith. >> >> I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about >> this. A >> country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so >> meek) >> followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a >> backwater of >> ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this >> country, > and >> I hate it for that. >> >> -- Russ Abbott >> _____________________________________________ >> Professor, Computer Science >> California State University, Los Angeles >> o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Doug >>> >>>> >>>> */Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" >>>> is, >>>> wouldn't it?/* >>>> >>>> ;-} >>>> >>>> One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos >>>> are > still >>>> reverberating. >>>> >>> Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie, >>> caught >>> like a deer in the headlights. >>> >>> I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George >>> II even >>> more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid >>> answer) > was >>> totally inappropriate (but hugely effective). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/3aa9106 > 9/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 10 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:48:26 -0600 >> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: [hidden email], "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >> Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >> >> Unfortunately, part of the process of subscribing to a fundamentalist >> religion entails checking your brain in at the door. In spite of >> this >> requirement, I've encountered more than one brainwashed >> fundamentalist who >> was damned clever at avoiding logic in favor of dogma. >> >> The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use religion >> hide >> from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for >> themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions and all of the >> bigotry, >> closed-mindedness, and anti-intellectualism that goes with that >> particular >> lifestyle preference.* >> >> --Doug >> >> >> **Note that not once did I use the word "stupid" in expressing my >> opinions >> regarding fundamentalism. Nor, did I attempt to characterize >> fundamentalists as weak, cowardly, or bigoted. Oops, I did use >> "bigotry". >> Oh, what the fuck. Fundamentalists *are* stupid. AND weak. AND >> cowardly. >> And, before the list moderator comes down on me: It's not my >> fault. THEY >> started this thread!!* >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >>> This thread (and the reference to the column by George > Monbio<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-elec > tion-obama-bush-mccain>t, >>> prompted me to post the following on my > blog<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/> >>> . >>> >>> *Is religion good or bad?* >>> >>> Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked, >>> people >>> usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do >>> in the > name >>> of religion?e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades > (bad). >>> >>> But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in >>> The >>> > Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-el > ection-obama-bush-mccain>reminded me why, in general, I think > religion is > bad: at >>> its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason. >>> >>> One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage >>> people > not >>> to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to >>> incorrect >>> conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance >>> with > them >>> if they are open to the idea that one should think things through. > Religion >>> closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a >>> perspective > in >>> which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what?because it is > God's >>> will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some > particular >>> position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is >>> with > the >>> idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is "God's > will" >>> or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let >>> themselves > off >>> the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and >>> decisions. >>> >>> It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do >>> whatever > one's >>> religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or >>> not. But > the >>> problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that >>> sort of >>> behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings >>> of a >>> faith-based religion is mindless faith. >>> >>> I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about >>> this. > A >>> country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so > meek) >>> followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a >>> backwater > of >>> ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this >>> country, > and >>> I hate it for that. >>> >>> -- Russ Abbott >>> _____________________________________________ >>> Professor, Computer Science >>> California State University, Los Angeles >>> o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Doug >>>> >>>>> >>>>> */Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word >>>>> "is" is, >>>>> wouldn't it?/* >>>>> >>>>> ;-} >>>>> >>>>> One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos >>>>> are >>>>> still reverberating. >>>>> >>>> Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie, > caught >>>> like a deer in the headlights. >>>> >>>> I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II > even >>>> more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid > answer) was >>>> totally inappropriate (but hugely effective). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/6841edc > 5/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 11 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:08:44 -0700 >> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 04:48 PM: >>> The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use >>> religion hide >>> from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for >>> themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions >> >> Excellent! Now we may get closer to the truth. Humans (and their >> psychological, biological, sociological, etc. constitution) _causes_ >> fundamentalist religions, not vice versa. (though there will >> obviously >> be reinforcing global forces when fundamentalism is the dominant >> context >> that feed back onto the causes, but fundamentalism re-emerges so >> often >> that I'd claim the feedback is weaker than the first order causes) >> >> Now that we have the directionality of that causal relationship >> straight, we can begin talking about the constitution of humans, i.e. >> the causes, rather than religion, which is merely the symptom. >> >> What is it about humans and their context that gives rise to the need >> for habit, ritual, dogma, "instinct", and un/subconscious >> stimulus-reaction processes? And when do things like habit prove >> beneficial versus detrimental? >> >> It's quite clear that when, say, riding a bicycle or hitting a >> baseball, >> ritual and habit reign. But when, say, voting or playing Go, it's >> better to spend a large amount of time thinking. Mixed >> circumstances, >> e.g. wielding an automatic rifle in the middle of Iraq, will >> obviously >> present a complex problem that has to be solved with part habit and >> part >> thought. >> >> Are there any generic (abstracted) properties of circumstances where >> habit is clearly best ... or where in-depth analysis is clearly best? >> >> -- >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 12 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:15:30 -0600 >> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Glen, >> >> It is if you are my shill, sitting out there in the audience >> amongst all > the >> rubes. >> >> See my post immediately following... >> >> --Doug >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:08 PM, glen e. p. ropella >> <[hidden email]>wrote: >> >>> Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 04:48 PM: >>>> The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use religion > hide >>>> from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for >>>> themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions >>> >>> Excellent! Now we may get closer to the truth. Humans (and their >>> psychological, biological, sociological, etc. constitution) _causes_ >>> fundamentalist religions, not vice versa. (though there will >>> obviously >>> be reinforcing global forces when fundamentalism is the dominant >>> context >>> that feed back onto the causes, but fundamentalism re-emerges so >>> often >>> that I'd claim the feedback is weaker than the first order causes) >>> >>> Now that we have the directionality of that causal relationship >>> straight, we can begin talking about the constitution of humans, >>> i.e. >>> the causes, rather than religion, which is merely the symptom. >>> >>> What is it about humans and their context that gives rise to the >>> need >>> for habit, ritual, dogma, "instinct", and un/subconscious >>> stimulus-reaction processes? And when do things like habit prove >>> beneficial versus detrimental? >>> >>> It's quite clear that when, say, riding a bicycle or hitting a >>> baseball, >>> ritual and habit reign. But when, say, voting or playing Go, it's >>> better to spend a large amount of time thinking. Mixed >>> circumstances, >>> e.g. wielding an automatic rifle in the middle of Iraq, will >>> obviously >>> present a complex problem that has to be solved with part habit >>> and part >>> thought. >>> >>> Are there any generic (abstracted) properties of circumstances where >>> habit is clearly best ... or where in-depth analysis is clearly >>> best? >>> >>> -- >>> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts, RTI International >> [hidden email] >> [hidden email] >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/8a1485a > c/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 13 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:16:44 -0600 >> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: [hidden email], "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >> Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >> >> Like a dog returning his own vomit, I can't seem to distance myself >> from >> this thread. One last contribution (hopefully). In one my circles >> of >> friends -- using the term somewhat loosely -- there is a cluster of >> Democrats and one lonely, besieged Republican. Naturally, the > conversations >> between us have frequently devolved, using words like "stupid", and >> "DemoCRAP", and "ReFUCKINGPublican". After one particularly heated >> conversation where the lone Republican admitted, after incessant >> badgering >> from the rest of us (ok, from me), that he still *liked* Bush. I >> contemplated his admission for a day or two, and then responded >> with the >> following: >> >> *I had a small epiphany Friday evening. There was a Los Alamos Hill >> Topper's home football game this last Friday, and the LA high >> school band >> was out of town at some kind of competition. Because of this, the >> high >> school had asked one of the bands that I'm in, the "HillStompers" >> to play > at >> the game instead. We said, "Sure." >> >> So, at 6:30pm we ambled in, and took our seats in the Sullivan Field > stadium >> where the HS band usually sits. Immediately, a Down's Syndrome boy >> came >> over and told us we had to leave, because that is where the high >> school > band >> sat. Our band leader tried to explain that we were the substitute >> band > for >> the evening. >> >> He remained unconvinced for the entire evening. >> >> The epiphany: Stupid people don't recognize that they are stupid. >> Seemingly, this applies to any level of stupidity. Bush's level, >> Palin's >> level, XXXXX's* level, Down's Syndrome, your level, my level -- it >> doesn't >> matter. Stupid people are convinced that no matter who says >> differently, >> they are right. You can waste your breath trying to convince them > otherwise >> if you so choose, but you will have succeeded in exactly that: >> wasting > your >> breath. >> >> Which in itself is a pretty stupid thing to do.* >> >> * XXXXX is, of course, the beseiged Republican >> >> --Doug >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >>> This thread (and the reference to the column by George > Monbio<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-elec > tion-obama-bush-mccain>t, >>> prompted me to post the following on my > blog<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/> >>> . >>> >>> *Is religion good or bad?* >>> >>> Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked, >>> people >>> usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do >>> in the > name >>> of religion?e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades > (bad). >>> >>> But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in >>> The >>> > Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-el > ection-obama-bush-mccain>reminded me why, in general, I think > religion is > bad: at >>> its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason. >>> >>> One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage >>> people > not >>> to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to >>> incorrect >>> conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance >>> with > them >>> if they are open to the idea that one should think things through. > Religion >>> closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a >>> perspective > in >>> which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what?because it is > God's >>> will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some > particular >>> position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is >>> with > the >>> idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is "God's > will" >>> or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let >>> themselves > off >>> the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and >>> decisions. >>> >>> It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do >>> whatever > one's >>> religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or >>> not. But > the >>> problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that >>> sort of >>> behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings >>> of a >>> faith-based religion is mindless faith. >>> >>> I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about >>> this. > A >>> country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so > meek) >>> followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a >>> backwater > of >>> ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this >>> country, > and >>> I hate it for that. >>> >>> -- Russ Abbott >>> _____________________________________________ >>> Professor, Computer Science >>> California State University, Los Angeles >>> o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Doug >>>> >>>>> >>>>> */Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word >>>>> "is" is, >>>>> wouldn't it?/* >>>>> >>>>> ;-} >>>>> >>>>> One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos >>>>> are >>>>> still reverberating. >>>>> >>>> Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie, > caught >>>> like a deer in the headlights. >>>> >>>> I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II > even >>>> more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid > answer) was >>>> totally inappropriate (but hugely effective). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/281b5cc > 3/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 14 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:59:27 -0700 >> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 05:15 PM: >>> It is if you are my shill, sitting out there in the audience amongst > all the >>> rubes. >> >> I live to serve! >> >> -- >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 15 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:10:10 -0600 >> From: "Tom Johnson" <[hidden email]> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia >> Flash >> Player] >> To: "Friam@redfish. com" <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >>> From the Internet Scout.... >> >> >> >> *Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia Flash Player]* >> >> http://www.maa.org/news/102308charney.html >> >> The Mathematical Association of America (MAA) continues to build on >> their >> already solid online presence with the addition of this lecture by >> noted >> mathematician and scholar Professor Ruth Charney. This particular >> lecture >> was given at the MAA's Carriage House Conference Center in the fall >> of > 2008 >> and it deals with how cubes can be used to represent a variety of >> systems. >> As Charney notes, "The geometry of these spaces is strange, >> complicated, > and >> a lot of fun to study." Visitors to the site can watch several > particularly >> lucid examples from Charney's talk, read her biography, and also >> read a >> detailed interview with her conducted by Michael Pearson. >> > [KMG]<https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&view=page&name=gp&ver=sh3fib53pgpk > # > 11d532fd493691f2_team> >> >> tj >> ========================================== >> J. T. Johnson >> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA >> www.analyticjournalism.com >> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) >> http://www.jtjohnson.com [hidden email] >> >> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. >> To change something, build a new model that makes the >> existing model obsolete." >> -- Buckminster Fuller >> ========================================== >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/0570cae > 0/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 16 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:30:43 -0600 >> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> People: I'm thinking Freakonomics here. Statistics. Human behavior >> patterns. You know, Science! >> >> Thus far I've heard only rants on religion, stupidity, and probably >> bad spelling. >> >> Is there *any* reason for the close vote (especially in the 2000 2004 >> 2008 elections). >> >> Here are a few possibilities: >> - Parties form attractors. >> - Classism. >> - Single Issue voters. >> - Marketing to a tie. >> - The Central Limit Theorem. >> >> This is especially interesting seeing how the rest of the world is so >> *hugely* for Obama. What's different about us? And don't tell me >> Europeans are smarter than us, they aren't. Different, yes. But >> they >> elect assholes as often as we do. >> >> I heard an interesting talk about how historians look at this: >> http://radioopensource.org/a-longer-view-of-2008-historian-gordon-wood/ >> One of his points is that: "I think that all of these candidates will >> find that they have been carried along by forces that they can >> scarcely understand." >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 17 >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:50:18 -0600 >> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> Hmm..this may be spot-on. >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Richard Harris wrote: >> >>> Saw an interesting article on this topic in the Guardian the other >>> day. >>> >>> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-election-ob > ama-bush-mccain >>> >>> Don't really know what to add. >>> >>> Rich >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 18 >> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:12:42 -0600 >> From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081101/95932d4 > a/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 19 >> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:51:33 -0600 >> From: John Sadd <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <[hidden email]> >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> Tom, of course the question "Why isn't Obama white?" is perfectly >> valid. Most of us supposedly enlightened types would like to think >> that we all agree that, especially in a world where intermingling >> of a >> genetic nature among traditional genetic groups has made the notion >> of >> "race" fairly undefinable, it is of course not yet irrelevant. There >> are presumably genetic reasons why the children of mixed-race >> marriages between "Caucasians" and descendents of sub-Saharan >> Africans tend on average to preserve more of the physical traits of >> their African heritage, which contributes to our ease of >> identifying a >> Barack Obama as "black", without qualification. But our own sordid >> history as a nation of course also contributes to how we tend to >> identify people. (And how interesting it is that all the false >> reports >> of Obama being a closet Muslim -- and the assumptions that that would >> make him a terrorist by association -- seem to have trumped at least >> public debates about his being black. I suppose it's just that the >> rumor-mongers know that they have to be more careful about racial >> epithets than non-American-standard religious ones.) >> >> Another couple of interesting data points (recognizing that I'm >> getting wildly off-topic here): My wife, who somewhat to her chagrin >> is descended from a number of prominent slave-owning southerners, is >> reading the book The Hemingses of Monticello, which sounds >> fascinating. Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings was of >> course no aberration. I think one of the basic tenets of the book >> (which I haven't read yet) is that basically everybody on the >> plantation was related, and they all knew it. If I remember >> correctly, Sally Hemings was a blood relative of Jefferson's wife. So >> we have a long tradition of carefully identifying the children of >> (typically) the rape of a black (slave) woman by a white man as >> black, >> so that they could clearly be identified as slaves. >> >> (Interesting point of comparison -- continuing wildly off-topic): >> White Australians discovered that the distinctive physical traits of >> aborigines tend to disappear much more quickly on average when they >> intermarry or otherwise mix genes with whites, maybe because the >> original gene pool of those aboriginal settlers must have been pretty >> small. So the Australian government took exactly the opposite tack of >> our own nation, and went through a period --shockingly recent -- of >> kidnapping young aboriginal children from their families, raising >> them >> in their equivalent of Indian schools, and encouraging poor whites to >> marry them, in effect to wash away the aboriginal blood. If you >> haven't seen it, rent the wonderful Australian film Rabbit-Proof >> Fence >> on this subject. >> >> While I'm in book review mode, I am reading Paul Krugman's excellent >> book The Conscience of a Liberal, which I highly recommend to anyone >> trying to figure out how to save "liberal" from being a dirty word. >> >> Enough. >> >> john >> >> On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter wrote: >> >>> All - >>> >>> I'm not singling out John for this comment, but just using it as a >>> trigger . . . >>> >>> On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:45 AM, John Sadd wrote: >>> >>>> it is totally effing amazing that a black man >>> >>> which raises the question, "Why isn't Obama white?" >>> >>> If that question sounds silly to you, think a little about how >>> deeply you and I and everyone seem to have internalized the "Jim >>> Crow one drop rule" (i.e., one drop of "black" blood makes you >>> black . . .). >>> >>> Part of the trouble is that we're all "willfully ignorant" in our >>> own ways, it's just hard to notice our own . . . >>> >>> But back to Owen's question . . . I'd say that the Republicans >>> have really gotten on board with the idea that it's OK to say and do >>> *anything* to get elected. In my experience, Democrats tend to have >>> at least a little trouble flat out lying . . . >>> >>> I often play the "projection" game when I listen to political >>> rhetoric -- i.e., if they accuse their opponents of something, it's >>> probably because they know that's what they'd do (or are doing). A >>> few examples: McCain says "Obama will say anything to get >>> elected" (charge doesn't really apply to Obama, but certainly does >>> to McCain). McCain/Palin say "Obama is a socialist" (Palin is >>> popular in Alaska because she increased taxes on the rich >>> (corporations) and gave the money directly to ordinary people, no >>> strings attached). McCain says "Obama wants to `spread the wealth >>> around'" -- meaning, he wants you to believe, take money from some >>> people and give it to others (he, and rich Republicans, are all for >>> it, as long as what you mean is, take $700 billion from ordinary >>> people and give it to financial institutions . . .) >>> >>> Oh, well . . . >>> >>> tom >>> >>> p.s. On the "Why isn't Obama white?" question: >>> >>> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/EDQI13NPIT.DTL&h > w=why+isn%27t+obama+white&sn=003&sc=242 >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Friam mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> >> End of Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 1 >> ************************************ > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
> To which of the 19 emails you forwarded do you refer? > > -- Owen Probably any/all of the 18 not labeled "Modeling with Cubes" ;-} I'd say we were off on a Rant yesterday! And the flurries continue today! >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: Election: Why So Close (Tom Carter) >>> 2. Re: Election: Why So Close ([hidden email]) >>> 3. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >>> 4. Re: Election: Why So Close (Marcus G. Daniels) >>> 5. Re: Election: Why So Close (Roger Critchlow) >>> 6. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >>> 7. Re: Election: Why So Close (Steve Smith) >>> 8. Re: Election: Why So Close (Jochen Fromm) >>> 9. Re: Election: Why So Close (Russ Abbott) >>> 10. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >>> 11. Re: Election: Why So Close (glen e. p. ropella) >>> 12. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >>> 13. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts) >>> 14. Re: Election: Why So Close (glen e. p. ropella) >>> 15. Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia Flash Player] >>> (Tom Johnson) >>> 16. Re: Election: Why So Close (Owen Densmore) >>> 17. Re: Election: Why So Close (Owen Densmore) >>> 18. Re: Election: Why So Close (Steve Smith) >>> 19. Re: Election: Why So Close (John Sadd) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
On Nov 1, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> >> To which of the 19 emails you forwarded do you refer? >> >> -- Owen > Probably any/all of the 18 not labeled "Modeling with Cubes" ;-} Well, my interest in the knowing the specific point, other than excellence of DSW's writing, was that I'd read some of the second book (lent to me by Nick). This came in the context of my trying to find a good, formal, mathematical treatment on Evolution. (Not genetics .. just basic Darwinist Evolution) If anyone knows of such a text, I'd love to know of it! SFI's David Krakauer gave a good talk on the stability requirements of variation and selection at the summer school. Here's his site: http://www.santafe.edu/~krakauer/Site/Welcome.html Re: Religion and Evolution -- Evolution was formally accepted into Catholic teachings in the early 1900s as I recall. (I suspect this to be true for most of the non-fundamentalist Christian religions.) There's never been much bother about it. I presume the same to be true for Judaism, Buddhism, Islam et. al. as well. -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |