alQpr

What is often decried as “cultural appropriation” is not something I am generally prepared to always avoid or disapprove of. Indeed in a world of interacting nations every culture is build from a mish-mash of others that came from before or afar. One particularly silly example of a complaint is the case of the American girl of European ancestry who wore a dress of a style that was once popular in China where its tight-fitting style actually was adopted in imitation of the tailoring styles and techniques then current in Europe – as opposed to the looser fits of traditional Chinese culture.

Of course, if the appropriation has an overt or covert demeaning intent or effect then I am prepared to consider that it might be unacceptable. Unacceptable appropriations might include copying a style of special cultural significance and using it in a context which the originating culture would find offensive, (but I might also be prepared to do that if I thought that giving such offense was for some reason necessary). They also include copying a style of no special significance if done in form of a caricature, and use of the word “woke” does have that kind of a feel for me. It seems a bit like the use of “blackface” in the context of a “minstrel show” with exaggerated gestures – as opposed to the (imo perfectly legitimate) use of makeup to honestly portray a character of different skin colour.

Sometimes (as with English tea drinking) an incorporated element becomes truly “appropriated” as a distinctive element of the appropriating culture, but this does nothing to diminish the value of the practice to its earlier adopters. There may be situations where such appropriation does negatively impact the source culture by stealing its market. This is arguably the case for some indigenous art styles, but it is hard to tell for sure whether the imitators reduce or increase the market for originals so the only cases I might accept restriction of are those involving a specific image class (as opposed to a more general style).

This brings us to the case of cultural documentation (which is how I interpret much of the early work of Emily Carr).

Source: Neale’s blog: Emily Carr without “Indian” Art

As one who is often frustrated with the pace of spoken words I find that this resonates with me. But that is not to say that I don’t find pictures and animations useful for certain kinds of information. In fact, for me, I’d say that the distinction is not so much between pictures vs print as between text and voice for verbal communication.

And as a further comment I would note that while we do have written texts to refer to, the intended medium through which we are expected to experience the ambiguities of Hamlet, Macbeth, and Caesar is via spoken words whose intonation often carries more information than the text (and/or directs us to particular interpretations or suggests ones that are different from the directly literal).

Source: Neale’s blog: Pictures vs. Print

If we are to interpret questions about the mental state of a fictional character as being about the intent of the author, then in this case the answer is surely no – as the authors of the gospels clearly did intend readers to believe in the divinity of their subject.

But when it comes to whatever real person or person those stories are based on, the idea that they were delusional is plausible – even if we admire the delusion to the extent of calling it a “divine madness”. Though on the other hand, it is also possible that a sane person might choose to claim godhead without actually believing in it for the purpose of achieving some political or social goal.

Source: Neale’s blog

My friend Neale Adams is a professional writer who now in retirement finds that writing is in his blood and feels compelled to continue to exercise his craft even though it may now be without financial compensation, but in declaring his plan for writing he indicates that it is important for him to have a responsive (or at least appreciative) audience.

The desire for audience is also expressed by another writing friend of mine, Geoffrey Keyte, who I have long hoped would see the value of making his work accessible online rather than just all in privately circulated print format.

But for me, although I would welcome (and regret the lack of) a sense that I was actually communicating with others, the primary purpose of my own writing is to clarify thoughts in my own mind. Some of that writing might actually be of interest (I hope) but much is just reaction to the writing of others and/or is too cryptic for a wider audience. So I do not agree with Neale’s assertion that “As with speech, the audience is others” . In fact many years ago I wrote that “Not having an audience, I don’t really have the option to persuade anyone, so for me it’s more about clarification and reinforcement of my own thoughts and ideas – and protection against the fear that I will forget them.” And even earlier I wrote something similar.

However, I do value communication and feedback, and once had hopes that the trackback and RSS features of early Blogging technology and would allow the development of a robust network for the exchange of written ideas. Perhaps it did for a while, but hopes were dashed when the owners and controllers of the RSS communication infrastructure saw less profit in such a network of independently hosted sites than in their own “walled gardens” – and/or when people like me became too lazy to manage their own email newsletters. The possible good news on that score is that the Substack platform provides tools for writers to email news of their content to subscription lists (and if interested to collect fees from their subscribers) – and of course also to host and manage comments on their work.

Up to now I have only used Substack to read and comment on the work of others but if I were to use it for building an audience for some more substantial efforts then perhaps a post such as this might be a good place to start.

Source: Neale’s blog: A plan for writing

So there will be no move towards a “binding” referendum while Danielle Smith is Premier – which means I guess we are safe until the end of the UCP convention on Nov 29.

Source: CBC News – Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News

When I was young, the Deccan Traps were widely considered to be the most likely explanation of the KT extinction. But discovery of the Iridium signature and Chicxulub crater made it clear that there was another possibility whose short sharp impact would seem much more likely to explain the breadth of that extinction event. It is possible that the evolutionary stress of responding to the environmental fluctuations caused by the on-again-off-again earlier Deccan eruptions would leave the global ecosystem less (but also possibly more?) capable of surviving the impact without such permanent change, and also that such stresses due to eruptions after the impact might have made it harder for some species to recover, but the impact surely played a role. Also, the fact that there is apparently less of a dramatic signature in the foraminifera may be due to their apparent sensitivity to less intense but perhaps longer lasting changes. I don’t know, but the fact that the question of relative importance (of Traps vs Chicxulub) is still being discussed and voted on at conferences makes me doubt that proponents of the older theory are really considered “dangerous” to the scientific community as a whole (despite the unfortunate battle of egos that often distorts science – just as it also does for other domains of perceived human excellence)

Source: the most dangerous woman in science – Google Search

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar says some AI researchers are taking up smoking because they expect AI to cure cancer … and the rest of them are doing so because they think that AI will kill us all before the cancer gets them.

Source: Kalshi on X: “JUST IN: Palantir CTO says some AI researchers are taking up smoking because they expect AI to cure cancer. https://t.co/3OV8JGBtOP” / X

US congressman Paul Ryan suggests that UBI should not be supported because it “reduces labor force participation“. Well news flash – unearned wealth of any kind also reduces labor force participation. So is Mr Ryan in favour of limiting or taxing away the major part of all inheritances and gifts?

Source: Paul Ryan on X: “Proponents push Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a cure-all, but the data tells a different story. Recent trials show unconditional cash reduces labor force participation and earnings. Americans deserve better and that’s what states can off

Source: Rocket Science – Physics Notes

I suspect that WestJet and its employees will suffer huge negative consequences as a result of their unnecessary disruption of the lives of thousands of Canadians over an issue that they were able to resolve in just 24 hours of real negotiation. Neither I nor (so far as I am aware) anyone I know had our holiday travels disrupted, and yet I still feel a sense of outrage (despite having had, in my time, to make similarly disruptive decisions affecting the lives of others).

Source: WestJet and CUPE reach tentative agreement, ending job action, flight disruptions

It may be true that higher education is losing the public’s trust, but this article “has to be read to be believed. No, strike that, I’ve read it(*) three times, and I am still struggling to convince myself that it’s real” [(*)Not only that, but also some of the misrepresented paywalled references] What is particularly “bizarre” and “clueless” is the author’s obsession with the question of whether or not sex is binary(#) – and whether or not it would be appropriate for an anthropology conference to include a panel advocating study based on the assumption that it is.

Of course it may be appropriate for anthropologists to look at how the false belief that sex is a binary characteristic affects the development of some cultures, but since many cultures do not make that mistake it would be wrong for anthropologists themselves to take the binary perspective so it may have been perfectly reasonable to reject the workshop.

It also may be true that the explanation of the rejection given in an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education was not optimal, and that the academic world as a whole has done a poor job of explaining complex (and sometimes counter-intuitive) things in simple terms. But a more credible article would have made some effort to identify how the explanation might have been improved.

(#) The fact that the joint distribution of several human characteristics is strongly bimodal may justify the claim that there are just two clearly identified “sexes”, but the existence of individuals who (for a whole variety of different reasons) do not clearly fall into either of those makes it immediately obvious (except in societies where the acknowledgement of such individuals is actively suppressed) that there is not a binary classification of all humans as one or the other.

Source: Opinion | Higher education is losing the public’s trust – The Washington Post

A Quoran asks: What is gravity? Does it work like Sir Newton said or Like Sir Einstein said? Which definition is more accurate?

Gravity is the name we give to the fact that all (uncharged) matter tends to clump together.

For normal objects (including apples, moons, planets and stars) moving at normal speeds it works (so far as we can detect with normal instruments) exactly like Sir Newton said; but for objects moving more than a hundred thousand times the speed of sound (like subatomic particles in a high energy accelerator) or for very precise measurements over long periods of time (like observing the orbit of Mercury over many decades or coordinating the timing of super-accurate atomic clocks on GPS satellites) we can detect subtle differences. Most of these differences are consistent with what ‘Sir’ Einstein said, so that version is more accurate.

But whether or not it really works exactly like that is not certain, and in fact some observations (such as the rotation speeds of some galaxies) may not exactly fit (but we don’t yet know whether that means we need a new theory or just that there is more massive stuff in those galaxies than we thought there was). And also, since it’s not a “quantum” theory it may have to be modified in order to correctly describe how it works with elementary particles.

Isaac Newton first suggested that the way matter clumps together can be described by assigning a number (called “mass”) to each object and then, for each object, adding up acceleration vectors pointing towards all of the other objects whose magnitudes are proportional to the masses of the target objects and inversely proportional to the squares of the distances. This rule works perfectly well for the initial acceleration of objects that are stationary relative to one another – and before the invention of super-accurate atomic clocks, no deviation from it was ever detectable for macroscopic objects moving for short times at any achievable speed.

Albert Einstein noted that if the relationship between electricity and magnetism were to have the same form (and so to give the same apparent speed of light) for all observers, then space and time would have to be related in such a way that events which appear simultaneous to one observer might seem to be at different times for another observer who is moving relative to the first. (This relationship can be interpreted as a kind of “geometry” for the combined four dimensional space-time combination.)

In attempting to come up with a modification of Newton’s theory that fit with this, Einstein was led to a version which can be expressed in terms of how mass affects the relationship between space and time (in a way that can be interpreted as adding curvature to the “geometry”). And, as mentioned above, no observation has yet ruled out the possibility that this theory might really be exact.

Source: (1002) Alan Cooper’s answer to What is gravity? Does it work like Sir Newton said or Like Sir Einstein said? Which definition is more accurate? – Quora

If, despite lowering standards only half the population gets to experience post-secondary indoctrination, then indeed this might drive an unhealthy bifurcation of political orientation. Perhaps we need a more universally shared experience for young adults – such as required period of quasi-military public service (including perhaps the proposed environmental disaster response force), during which more interaction between the various echo chambers might be encouraged.

Source: (1) We asked too much of the American university

Do rules against insider trading really not prohibit the sale of insider information to third parties in advance of its public release?!!!

Source: Trump Media to Sell Real-Time Truth Social Feed to Traders – WSJ

Roger Pielke Jr. has a long history of what some see as casting doubt on the need for prompt reduction of our CO2 emissions but which he categorizes just as exposing false and/or misleading claims (and sometimes even scientific malpractice) by advocates of climate action. This has led to great animosity and lawsuits between Pielke and some climate activists (esp Michael Mann ) and he claims to have been hounded out of various academic roles as a result.

He does not deny either the reality of anthropogenic global warming or the need for prompt action to reduce our emissions, but many of his followers do and he seems to make little effort to discourage them. And some of his complaints strike me as exaggerated to the point of verging on dishonesty.

This raises a conundrum in my mind regarding my ongoing concern with how we should react to wrong arguments for things that are true.

It is important to reject false arguments for things that are true, but if the true facts are important then it is also necessary to always accompany the exposure of a false argument with a correct and convincing argument for the same conclusion.

(NB An earlier version of this post was published in July of 2024)

Source: Why Climate Misinformation Persists – by Roger Pielke Jr.

The certainty with which “expert” opinions are expressed to the public on matters of public policy import is almost always greater than that with which the “experts”, if speaking honestly, would admit to one another. And on the other hand, those “experts” (and others) who distrust the “consensus” frequently exaggerate the extent and sources of doubt. But in this case I agree with Pielke that even if one has just a 10% credence in the lab leak origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (as apparently was the case for at least some of the authors of the “Proximal Origin” paper), then that should by no means be considered as “case closed” and should motivate a much more serious investigation into whether or not a breach actually occurred, and into the effectiveness (and faithful application) of containment protocols in the research community as a whole.

Source: “We Just Need to Re-Convince Ourselves It’s Coincidence”

It is important to identify and reject both false arguments for a position one believes to be true and claims which make a false extension of that position. But when someone professing to be an “Honest Broker” focuses exclusively on such rejections on one side of an argument it becomes hard not to suspect that they are engaged in some kind of covert support for those who deny the position they claim to agree with.

This suspicion is strengthened when the rejected extreme position is not actually being put forward – except by the “Honest Broker” himself as a straw man to be cut down.

A case in point is the analogy drawn by some between CO2 emissions and a thermostat. No-one has suggested that reducing CO2 emissions now would have any immediate effect on heat wave intensity or frequency but rather just that if we don’t cut emissions then there is a good chance that the heat waves will get worse. In terms of the analogy there is a furnace but no AC and the thermostat has been turned up so the furnace is on. Turning it down is essential to prevent further heating but will not immediately make us cooler.

Of course Pielke is correct that the thermostat analogy would be wrong if it was thought to control air conditioning as well as a furnace, but noone without AC expects that turning down the thermostat will immediately cool an overheated house. He is also correct that in some cases reducing combustion might temporarily increase some temperatures due to reduced aerosols, and that local temperature spikes might be mitigated in various ways (eg by water flow adjustments, vegetation and other land use changes, etc). But none of that is new news and the fact remains that the extent of the mitigation required will keep on increasing so long as the “thermostat” is pointing into the red zone.

Pielke includes a disclaimer that “Getting to net zero still makes sense even though it is not a solution to heat waves or other extreme weather events . . .The fact that carbon dioxide is not an extreme weather control knob does not weaken the case for reducing emissions.” But his claim that “many climate advocates are justifying their calls for net zero based on a false promise — that emissions reductions will improve the weather” is itself false – and serves only to unfairly malign the credibility of all “climate advocates”.

Source: Why Cutting Emissions Can’t Fix Europe’s Heat Waves

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis if often touted as some kind of necessary extension of current thinking about Biology. However is not a theory but rather just a “conceptual framework” or metaphor. And in fact, I see no reason not to expect that “the Modern Synthesis is already flexible enough to absorb these concepts without needing a ‘new’ framework”.

Indeed, it’s a mistake to suggest that anyone serious considers random genetic mutations as “driving” evolution, or that “DNA dictates everything upward, and nothing changes DNA backward”. The fact that “physiological, top-down signals from the cell and the tissue can actively dictate how genes behave and inherit traits” is well known and can be understood to be something that evolved purely by the process of natural selection. And if ever evolution eventually gets managed by some organism making deliberate changes to its own and other genomes (and epigenomes) then, although it may make sense and be more efficient as a prediction tool to use the idea of the managers’ motivation as a “causal” factor, the fact will remain that the whole process could also be “explained” as a result of natural selection having acted on random mutations with the effect (but not the “goal”) of eventually producing a species with that directive capacity. (But, even if that capacity leads to some period of dominance by its possessors, it will not have been selected for until already achieved and the selective pressures leading up to it were for characteristics and behaviours that gave other advantages rather than with having such intelligent self design in “mind” from the outset.)

What I will agree with the EES proponents on, though, is that there may have been a brief period when it was considered possible that DNA might be the only carrier of hereditary information in an organism, and that failure to discuss alternatives may contribute to a sense that none exist. The main reason for not discussing alternatives in justifications for Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution is just that DNA is the most easily understood mechanism of inheritance and is known to be mutable at a rate which is sufficient for selection from random mutations of DNA alone to be sufficient to explain much of the variety of life forms around us. The fact that some mutations may be due to changes in the epigenetic environment rather than just in the DNA sequence itself only increases the plausibility of the basic thesis that natural selection applied to the effects of random mutation is a sufficient explanation for that variety.

Source: (1002) Why does this Space rarely talk about the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)? Most of our discussions here do a fantastic job of debunking creationist ‘random chance’ myths by explaining the beautiful, non-random power of natural selection. But –

My own question requires one less word than that posed by former Bloomberg columnist and now Substack writer Noah Smith.

But his concern that writing for a Substack is less “conversational” than his previous role surprises me. There are certainly problems with the subscription model, but it does seem to provide ample opportunity for conversation by responding to comments, notes, and restacks. Perhaps though Smith is less interested in conversation with mere readers than with his fellow elite “pundits”.

Source: Does anything I write matter anymore? – by Noah Smith

This article does present some techniques that might be useful for someone struggling with OCD or other similar conditions.

Source: How to relax your own rules and build psychological flexibility | Psyche Guides