Carnival of the Elitist Bastards #16
If you haven’t seen it yet, go check out the sixteenth edition of CEB over at Quiche Moraine! Stephanie wrote a great story, and there are a bunch of interesting posts.
Carnival of the Elitist Bastards XI
Welcome to the eleventh edition of the Carnival of the Elitist Bastards. CEB is a monthly blog carnival that celebrates the intelligent and the exceptional, and decries willful ignorance and uniformity. Some may call us elitist bastards, but we prefer the term “awesome.” I thought the submissions this time fell into three general categories: politics/policy issues, science and other fact-related pursuits, and everyday life stuff. Let’s dig in:
Elitist law, politics, and policy
Stephanie Zvan at Almost Diamonds explains the Employee Free Choice Act. Not content to listen to generalizations from the Wall Street Journal and others reporting on the proposed legislation, she read it herself in order to break down what it really says and does.
Mike at The Big Stick discusses why a revolving door for teachers isn’t so bad. He argues that alternative certification procedures would allow more qualified and excited individuals to become teachers, and that’s better than the status quo for students even if these new teachers leave after a few years for other jobs.
Cujo359 at Slobber and Spittle writes about what history can teach us, specifically regarding the Obama administration’s public statements compared to the outcomes of Obama’s policies as president. King John didn’t write the Magna Carta on a whim alone one day; the British aristocracy held him accountable and pushed for the type of government they wanted.
Just the elitist facts, ma’am
John Pieret at Thoughts in a Haystack deconstructs statements from the Discovery Institute’s Michael Egnor, who argued that intelligent design ought to be taught as science since most Americans are creationists. John points out that this reveals not only that the real agenda behind ID is creationism, but also that ID proponents seem to think science is merely a popularity contest.
Dana Hunter at En Tequila Es Verdad recommends two books by Richard Dawkins on understanding evolution. The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable deal with the somewhat non-intuitive idea that complex beings could have “randomly” evolved. Understanding what the word “random” really means is one of the most interesting parts.
Blake Stacey at Science after Sunclipse mourns the death of the Boston Globe’s Health/Science section. They’re going to push a few science-related articles into the business and lifestyle sections if they fit, both space-wise and content-wise it seems.
Two people sent in links about Jon Stewart’s takedown of financial reporter Jim Cramer on The Daily Show. After a week-long feud between the two (Stewart mocked CNBC in a brief segment and Cramer took it upon himself to defend his show “Mad Money” and the station as a whole), Cramer came to Stewart for an interview. It’s pretty painful. Dana Hunter walks you through the gory details. Cujo359 turns it into a case study about how being ignorant of the facts and encouraging ignorance in others spells disaster for anyone, whether you’re a TV personality or not.
Living the elitist life
George at Decrepit Old Fool suggests that we do one impossible thing every year — not literally impossible, but seemingly impossible, something we can’t do yet and maybe never imagined we’d try. He’s learning to ride a unicycle. What will you do?
Blake Stacey also alerts us of the coining of the word TeXgefühl. If you’ve ever written in the typesetting system LaTeX or its variants, you’ll appreciate the notion that it takes a particular instinctive sense to get it right. My TeXgefühl has been gathering a bit of dust lately, but I think the existence of a word is motivating me to get it back in gear.
Here at It’s the Thought that Counts, I wrote about the Spread the Word to End the Word campaign (against the word “retarded”) and why it’s misguided. Respect for others is important, but I think we shouldn’t confuse respect with blind political correctness.
That wraps up CEB XI. Thanks for stopping by! It’s been an honor and a pleasure to host. See you next month!
Elitist bastards, assemble!
Don’t forget, the Carnival of the Elitist Bastards XI will be here this weekend, and by here I mean here at this blog. If you have a submission for the carnival, send it to me by midnight tonight (whenever your midnight is, I’ll be flexible), at z [at] thoughtcounts [dot] net. If you’ve already sent your entry to the usual carnival Gmail account, that’s okay, I’ll get them that way too.
Don’t be bashful about submitting your work, even if you’ve never been in CEB before. For elitist bastards, we’re surprisingly inclusive and welcoming….
Carnivalia
Happy Ides of March! I’m going to be away at a conference this week, and I’m not sure if I’ll be able to post much while I’m there. If you’re looking for good stuff to read in the meantime before I return, here are a few recent blog carnivals, great places to find some really interesting posts. In reverse chronological order:
- Skeptics’ Circle #107
- Carnival of the Liberals #86
- Carnival of the Godless #112
- Carnival of the Elitist Bastards X
- Skeptics’ Circle #106
Skeptics’ Circle #105: The Shakespeare Edition
Welcome to the 105th edition of the Skeptics’ Circle. It’s a privilege to be hosting such a fine carnival here at It’s the Thought that Counts. I hope you enjoy your stay at our humble blog.
In honor of the 105th edition, we’re going to take a look at William Shakespeare’s Sonnet 105. Although of course it’s actually about the beauty, gentleness, and loyalty of one’s beloved, I think we can give it a skeptical reading if we try hard enough. And with Valentine’s Day right around the corner, a love poem seemed appropriate. So let’s get right to it!
Let not my love be call’d idolatry,
Nor my beloved as an idol show,
What better way to open a meeting of skeptics? Several submissions focused on questioning facts assumed to be unchallengeable. One blogger unwilling to engage in such idolatry of assumptions was Karl Haro von Mogel at Biofortified, who can’t find a kernel of truth to anti-GMO groups’ claims that President Obama promised to mandate labeling of genetically modified foods. In other biology idolatry news, Jeremy at the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog discussed the claim that 98% of the world’s seeds come from six companies. Is that a real fact, or is it a great example of Bellman’s Theorem?
Since all alike my songs and praises be
No problem — skepticism doesn’t have to be applied only to rare or outlandish things. Sometimes the everyday provides perfect opportunities to exercise one’s critical thinking skills. Marty, of Marty’s Place, wrote about the natural explanations for his apparent telekinetic and psychic powers over his refrigerator and car stereo. Meanwhile Matt, the Skeptical Teacher, explained how fortune cookies don’t know your fortune, even if they appear to help someone win the lottery on occasion — and how the same is true for psychics.
While we’re on the subject of psychics: Seth Manapio, of Whiskey Before Breakfast…The Blog reminded us that psychics are con artists, using false advertising to trick people into believing them. He argued that we shouldn’t blame a psychic’s customer for getting scammed, just as we shouldn’t blame a rape victim for getting raped.
To one, of one, still such, and ever so.
Some people think that if you hold a particular viewpoint, you’re never allowed to do anything that might reveal slight complicity in anything perceived by anyone as contradictory. TechSkeptic, of Effort Sisyphus, found an article on Fox News criticizing environmentalists for ever using electricity, using manufactured items, or doing anything with any environmental cost. TechSkeptic explained why, if we encouraged that attitude, we’d all be living without the convenience of indoor plumbing.
Kind is my love to-day, to-morrow kind,
Still constant in a wondrous excellence;
Love may be constant, but the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is not. The Socratic Gadfly described how the definition revisions that took place between the DSM-III and DSM-IV may have contributed to the increase in autism diagnoses.
Therefore my verse to constancy confined,
One thing expressing, leaves out difference.
Yes, staying constant might be romantic, but it’s not always rational. Sometimes the difference is important, and shouldn’t be left out! It’s important to challenge our beliefs and see if a change is necessary. Barbara Drescher, at ICBS Everywhere, described her attempts to convince Frank Ferris to allow controlled tests to see if his dog Dave can really do math. Will she succeed? Stay tuned to her blog; there is some hope. TechSkeptic also gave us a great post on the challenge paradigm and its many manifestations. Check it out to see who’s doing it right, and who just doesn’t get it.
‘Fair, kind and true’ is all my argument,
‘Fair, kind, and true’ varying to other words;
Fairness, kindness, and truthfulness are certainly things we skeptics can get behind. (Heck, we’re even respectful while we’re insolent.) The emphasis is on that third one, though, so let’s take the time now to discuss evidence and how to examine it to find truth. Greta Christina, at her eponymous blog, asked if theists are really being intellectually honest when they say that the question of the existence of God(s) deserves “further exploration.” She argues that their version of exploration seems to involve a lot more omphaloskepsis than evidence-gathering. Over at Skeptimedia, Bob Carroll (of The Skeptic’s Dictionary fame) explained the importance of evaluating evidence. The class he used to teach on this topic sounds really interesting. Matt, the Skeptical Teacher, found some people who seem like they could use a lesson from Bob. He bravely delves into the strange and baseless claims made by conspiracy theorists worried about the Hudson River plane landing.
And in this change is my invention spent,
Okay, this is getting tricky, but I’m going to use the word “invention” to transition into publication of scientific research. Please imagine that that was graceful. Andrew of The Evolving Mind brought us the happy news of a paper published that gives a null result which may surprise you. Finding no relationship between variables is worth noting! I wrote about how papers posted on the freely available arXiv database do not necessarily contain reliable science, so they should be approached with caution. Blake Stacey, at Science after Sunclipse, shared a similar sentiment as well as a great example of some “alternative” genetic research he found there.
Three themes in one, which wondrous scope affords.
Skeptics know well that when you combine seemingly unrelated things into one new thing (think: quantum harpsichord bubble bath, sounds so curative!) you can make miracles… or at least a lot of money off the uninformed. Bing McGhandi, at Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes, used this philosophy to bring us chapter 1 of his Feng Shui Diet book, all about preventative feng shui. So convincing, it’ll make you wonder why no one’s tried to sell this before. Over at Ionian Enchantment, Michael Meadon showed us a story that was all too real: a Reuters piece on what feng shui masters have to say about finances in the coming year.
‘Fair, kind, and true,’ have often lived alone,
Which three till now never kept seat in one.
As Shakespeare closes, so will we, with Kylie’s review of the show “Lie to Me,” at Podblack Cat. She wrote, “They don’t seem to be short-changing the science” of lie detection, and she says it’s also pretty interesting and entertaining. Three for one; I may start watching the show myself!
That’s it for this time around. Join us for the next Skeptics’ Circle on February 26th, to be hosted by Disillusioned Words.
Reminder: Skeptics’ Circle
Don’t forget: if you’re planning to submit a post to the Skeptics’ Circle this time around, get it to me before midnight EST tonight. You can leave a comment here if you like, but the preferred method of submission is to email z [at] thoughtcounts [dot] net.
Carnival of the Elitist Bastards #9
Efrique gives us a great pirate puzzle for the ninth edition of the Carnival of the Elitist Bastards. Between that and the interesting posts, there’s plenty to stimulate your mind as well as your sense of elitism. Go take a look!
Skeptics’ Circle #104
Space City Skeptics has just posted the 104th edition of the Skeptics’ Circle. Those of us now in the swing of spring semester and perhaps coming up on our first set of exams may find it hauntingly familiar! (Sadly, I’m referring only to familiarity of the test theme, rather than the multiple choice format in particular…. Oh, how I miss those bygone days.) There’s plenty of interesting content there, but do make sure you check out the Perky Skeptic’s post about feeding trolls, and save some of that inspiration for next time you feel discouraged by the number of people who are wrong on the internet.
I’ll be hosting the next edition of the Skeptics’ Circle here on February 12, so please send me your submissions by the previous midnight (EST). Email them to z [at] thoughtcounts [dot] net.
Skeptics’ Circle #103
The first Skeptics’ Circle of the new year is up over at Bug Girl’s Blog. Go check it out! There’s lots of good stuff there to help you recover from the withdrawal I’m sure you faced, going without a Skeptics’ Circle for nearly an entire month.
I particularly enjoyed Kylie’s interview with Dr. Mark Henn at PodBlack Cat. They talk about what it means to be a deist, and whether that is really at odds with skepticism (as well as whether atheism and skepticism really go hand-in-hand). Lots of good stuff going on in the comments there, too. I was also fascinated by Whitney’s post at diapsalmata about a literary hoax that has fooled several academics. She shares her comparative media studies insight about what this can tell us about what makes good evidence, and what distinguishes the past from the present.
Don’t forget to submit your work to the next Skeptics’ Circle, over at Space City Skeptics, before it goes up on the 29th.
Carnival of the Elitist Bastards #4
The fourth Carnival of the Elitist Bastards went up during our absence, over at Blake Stacey’s blog Science after Sunclipse. Blake does a great job demonstrating that it’s possible to be a physicist and simultaneously have an impressive command of the English language. I haven’t read that much iambic pentameter in one sitting since high school.
Speaking of English fluency, I was particularly happy to see in the carnival a thorough explanation of elitist bastard language. Even though I’m generally against trying to live up to the “bastard” title, I do hate when people use “begging the question” to mean “making one wonder” rather than “employing circular logic”! Plenty of my other pet peeves are covered there as well — read and grumble along with me. Of course, all the posts at the carnival are worth a read, and I’m glad to see my post about the realities of the LHC found a place among them.
-
Recent Comments
sandeep on Thoughts on religious tolerance
bruce on Alternative medicine: worth a try?
Mike on Think before you speak
Zychan on What is Acts 29?
Emily on Grad students, 1…