The vultures over at the Discovery Institute, never ones to miss a chance to try to smear Charles Darwin (because of course smearing the man negates the science), and apparently not getting enough mileage out of their Hitler-Darwin propaganda, are trying to assign blame for the recent museum shootings by a white supremacist at the feet of poor Charles. David Klinghoffer writes:
"Our culture is very comfortable reminding us often of atrocities committed in the name of religion -- whether it's the Crusades, the Inquisition, or 9/11. Ironically, the day of the Holocaust Museum shooting, an interesting new Jewish web magazine, Tablet, published a fascinating scholarly essay by Paula Fredriksen about how under the Nazis, some German theologians tried to fit Jesus into a Nazi mold. They drew on anti-Jewish writings widely available in Christian tradition.
Is it 'beyond the pale' to point this out? No, of course not. So what's the difference?"
Here's the difference David, real slow, so maybe you'll get it this time. Religious views are supposedly morally superior to other views, and belief in them is supposed to result in a morally superior person. Having followers of a religion commit horrible atrocities naturally calls into question that claim, and perhaps, the religion in general. Those involved in the crusades, or 9/11, call into question those religions because they were active followers of those religions.
Now if someone is not a follower of the religion, but simply mentions some of the religion's figures or symbols, this would not call the religion into question, but rather would suggest that the person in question is merely another nut in a long line of nuts who looked for any means to rationalize his behavior.
Evolution is a scientific theory about how species change over time. That is the the standard by which it is measured. It does not make moral prescriptions. Were someone to take evolution, use it to do science and found that it led to inaccurate predictions and results, then evolution would rightly be called into question. But someone committing an atrocity mentioning evolution in passing, or even as a supposed motivation for his acts, places no blame at the feet of evolution the scientific theory, any more than a murderous youth mentioning Ozzie Osborne makes Ozzie complicit in the murder.
Now that we've cleared up the abstract problem, let's not forget to mention the real-world issue here. The Discovery Institute is a propaganda organization dedicated to destroying evolution as a scientific theory, and will stoop to any means to do so: propaganda films like Expelled, wacko conspiracy theories linking Darwin to the Nazis (the Nazis, in supreme irony, expelled scientists working from Darwinian principles), to blaming any random murder on Darwin if he or his work is mentioned anywhere, in any capacity, near the act. This is as predictable as the rising sun, and as such, warrants zero credibility for their views. Their stories are written before the acts even occurred, waiting only for the details to be filled in. XXXXX commits atrocious act YYYYY, Darwin to blame. [yawn]
If you'd like to give Klinghoffer your opinion, you can make comments here.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
NBA Coaches Need to Hire Mathematicians
Once again, a professional coach in a major game, ahead by plenty of points to win, and with little time left, blows the final game decision and loses as a result. In this latest of numerous cases, it was Orlando's Stan Van Gundy, ahead by three with ten seconds left (really 5 with 1:01 left, but I'll get to that in a minute), who chose not to foul the Lakers, allowing Lakers' guard Derek Fisher to make the game-tying 3-pointer that was their only chance to tie the game, and win in overtime. The need for NBA coaches (and really those for other sports as well) to have a mathematician on the sidelines for such situations screamed out in Gundy's post-game comments:
Van Gundy had his reasons for not fouling. He felt a foul too early would turn the game into a free-throw shooting contest and his team was hitting just 59 percent (22-for-37) of theirs. He philosophically doesn’t believe in doing it until “six or seven” seconds remain in the game.
“It was my decision with 11 seconds not to foul,” he said. “Yes I regret it now, but only in retrospect. I mean, normally to me 11 is too early. You foul, they make two free throws, [they] cut it to one [and] you’re still at six or seven seconds.”
Philosophically? PHILOSOPHICALLY? This isn't philosophy sir, it's basketball, and at these end-game situations it's really a mathematics problem. Further, it is not how many seconds left that dictates when one should start the foul-them-before-they-shoot-and-play-keep-away strategy. It is how many seconds are left relative to how many points ahead you are. The problem across all sports that I've seen for years is that coaches are not mathematically adept enough to be able to make such calculations, so the only time they use this strategy is when there is only one possession left. That's why they need a mathematician on the sideless to help them work out formulas like this:
Play keep away and foul when they cross half court (or when one of their crappy free throw shooters gets the ball) if: [Your Score - Their Score] / [minutes remaining] > 4, and you have possession.
After all, the surest way to insure victory when you have a sizeable lead in basketball is to take away their best hope - three-point shots, and emphasize yours - making free throws and handling the ball to avoid turnovers. The big implication of all this that Gundy (and the rest of the basketball world) is missing is that when you are way ahead, you WANT to turn it into a freethrow shooting contest and a keepaway contest, because you can put your best at both on the floor and you've got a big lead. Being way ahead makes certain skills, like rebunding, playing defense, and shot blocking, far less important than they are in the rest of the game. All that matters at this point is ball-handling and free throw shooting, and the players put out on the floor should be based on those skills and no others. Gundy's aversion to having a free throw contest based on the team's poor shooting throughout the game is irrelevant because many of the players that missed those shots aren't going to be in the game when it matters. Put in the guys that are good at it.
Allow me to illustrate. With 1:01 remaining, Kobe Bryant of the Lakers missed a shot and Orlando's Mickael Pietrus got the rebound with Orlando ahead 87-82. Orlando is now ahead by 5, with 61 seconds remaining and a 24 second shot clock. My rough formula for when the special strategy should be emplyed is when one's lead is greater than 4 points per minute remaining (assuming 24 seconds for your possessions and 6 seconds for your opponents) and one has possession of the ball. This situation qualifies. Now if Orlando just burns the full 24 seconds off the clock on their possessions, and fouls LA on theirs to prevent them from scoring more than 2 on any of their possessions, Orlando wins. Observe how it works even using outcomes as favorable to LA as can be expected:
O - 87 LA - 82 1:01 remaining
Orlando burns off all 24 seconds, doesn't score (they easily could have)
87-82 :35
LA dribbles to half court and is fouled
87-82 :32
LA makes both free throws (odds are they'd miss at least one)
87-84 :32
Orlando again just burns down the 24 second clock without attempting a shot
87-84 :08
LA gets fouled at half court
87-84 :05
LA makes both free throws
87-86 :05
Orlando runs out the clock to victory.
Now of course, it isn't a sure thing: LA could get a steal, or miss a free throw and get a rebound and score, or a whole host of highly improbable events. But then again, Orlanda could easily get a back door layup while killing the clock, or get fouled themselves. LA might even decide to foul back and turn it into a free throw shooting contest. But Orlando is ahead by 5, and has its best free throw shooters on the floor. The odds of them losing that contest are miniscule, far less than the odds of what happened: one guy hitting a three-pointer.
So wake up coaches, you're making it harder than it is. Get yourself a mathematician on your staff, we work cheap, and could mean the difference between winnning a title and not.
Van Gundy had his reasons for not fouling. He felt a foul too early would turn the game into a free-throw shooting contest and his team was hitting just 59 percent (22-for-37) of theirs. He philosophically doesn’t believe in doing it until “six or seven” seconds remain in the game.
“It was my decision with 11 seconds not to foul,” he said. “Yes I regret it now, but only in retrospect. I mean, normally to me 11 is too early. You foul, they make two free throws, [they] cut it to one [and] you’re still at six or seven seconds.”
Philosophically? PHILOSOPHICALLY? This isn't philosophy sir, it's basketball, and at these end-game situations it's really a mathematics problem. Further, it is not how many seconds left that dictates when one should start the foul-them-before-they-shoot-and-play-keep-away strategy. It is how many seconds are left relative to how many points ahead you are. The problem across all sports that I've seen for years is that coaches are not mathematically adept enough to be able to make such calculations, so the only time they use this strategy is when there is only one possession left. That's why they need a mathematician on the sideless to help them work out formulas like this:
Play keep away and foul when they cross half court (or when one of their crappy free throw shooters gets the ball) if: [Your Score - Their Score] / [minutes remaining] > 4, and you have possession.
After all, the surest way to insure victory when you have a sizeable lead in basketball is to take away their best hope - three-point shots, and emphasize yours - making free throws and handling the ball to avoid turnovers. The big implication of all this that Gundy (and the rest of the basketball world) is missing is that when you are way ahead, you WANT to turn it into a freethrow shooting contest and a keepaway contest, because you can put your best at both on the floor and you've got a big lead. Being way ahead makes certain skills, like rebunding, playing defense, and shot blocking, far less important than they are in the rest of the game. All that matters at this point is ball-handling and free throw shooting, and the players put out on the floor should be based on those skills and no others. Gundy's aversion to having a free throw contest based on the team's poor shooting throughout the game is irrelevant because many of the players that missed those shots aren't going to be in the game when it matters. Put in the guys that are good at it.
Allow me to illustrate. With 1:01 remaining, Kobe Bryant of the Lakers missed a shot and Orlando's Mickael Pietrus got the rebound with Orlando ahead 87-82. Orlando is now ahead by 5, with 61 seconds remaining and a 24 second shot clock. My rough formula for when the special strategy should be emplyed is when one's lead is greater than 4 points per minute remaining (assuming 24 seconds for your possessions and 6 seconds for your opponents) and one has possession of the ball. This situation qualifies. Now if Orlando just burns the full 24 seconds off the clock on their possessions, and fouls LA on theirs to prevent them from scoring more than 2 on any of their possessions, Orlando wins. Observe how it works even using outcomes as favorable to LA as can be expected:
O - 87 LA - 82 1:01 remaining
Orlando burns off all 24 seconds, doesn't score (they easily could have)
87-82 :35
LA dribbles to half court and is fouled
87-82 :32
LA makes both free throws (odds are they'd miss at least one)
87-84 :32
Orlando again just burns down the 24 second clock without attempting a shot
87-84 :08
LA gets fouled at half court
87-84 :05
LA makes both free throws
87-86 :05
Orlando runs out the clock to victory.
Now of course, it isn't a sure thing: LA could get a steal, or miss a free throw and get a rebound and score, or a whole host of highly improbable events. But then again, Orlanda could easily get a back door layup while killing the clock, or get fouled themselves. LA might even decide to foul back and turn it into a free throw shooting contest. But Orlando is ahead by 5, and has its best free throw shooters on the floor. The odds of them losing that contest are miniscule, far less than the odds of what happened: one guy hitting a three-pointer.
So wake up coaches, you're making it harder than it is. Get yourself a mathematician on your staff, we work cheap, and could mean the difference between winnning a title and not.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Casey Luskin's Dishonesty Exposed, DI attempts Censorship
Someone has taken Casey Luskin's one-way interview on Fox (aren't they supposed to be fair and balanced) and spliced in corrections to Luskin's distortions. The DI (or someone in the organization) has attempted to get these videos removed, so I'm posting them here so everyone can see them, and what a dishonest little toad Luskin is, before that happens. Enjoy:
Healthcare Data: It's not the Plural of Anecdote
If you are tired of anecdotes and horror stories and want actual data with regard to health care in the US and how it compares to other countries, then check out this post and others in the series. Some of the data is downright stunning, particularly this little tidbit represented by the graph in the middle of the article:
Striking, isn't it? Yet surveys on satisfaction with the system show Americans twice as likely as citizens of other nations to desire a complete rebuilding of their system. So we pay by far the most, but we are among the least happy with what we get. And what do we get by way of response from those who think our system is just fine? Anecdotes. You never see charts and graphs of actual data from them (just like you never see it from those who deny global warming either). As the wise keep reminding us, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Striking, isn't it? Yet surveys on satisfaction with the system show Americans twice as likely as citizens of other nations to desire a complete rebuilding of their system. So we pay by far the most, but we are among the least happy with what we get. And what do we get by way of response from those who think our system is just fine? Anecdotes. You never see charts and graphs of actual data from them (just like you never see it from those who deny global warming either). As the wise keep reminding us, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Kingsville Texas Determined to Maintain the Stupid Texan Stereotype
Some things are almost too stupid to believe. But there it is. At the urging of one Leonso Canales Jr., the Kleberg County commissioners have designated "heaven-o" as the county's official greeting, because "hello" contains the word "hell."
I'm not making this up
"When you go to school and church, they tell you 'hell' is negative and 'heaven' is positive,'" said the 56-year-old Canales, who owns the Kingsville Flea Market. "I think it's time that we set a new precedent, to tell our kids that we are positive adults."
Yeah, positively brick stupid. At least the article found an intelligent Texan to opine on the issue:
David Sabrio, a professor of English at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, noted that the Oxford English Dictionary says "hello" stems from an old German greeting for hailing a boat.
"Linguistically and historically, the word 'hello' has no connection at all with what we associate with the underworld," he said. "People may make that connection in their own mind. I certainly don't."
One wonders what they are going to do about helicopters, and helpers. And Hell, why stop with Hell? What about all the other dirty words that fall within other nondirty words. I have the urge to saunter on down to Kleberg country, order me some cocktails and kumquats, then sit down for a good rerun of that old James Bond classic "Octopussy", or a golf match featuring Dick Trickle and announced by Dick Shaft.
And while we're having fun here, let's not overlook the fact that this move by the county commissioners is blatantly unconstitutional. Why don't they just answer the phone "Praise JAYzus!" and lay all their cards on the table.
I'm not making this up
"When you go to school and church, they tell you 'hell' is negative and 'heaven' is positive,'" said the 56-year-old Canales, who owns the Kingsville Flea Market. "I think it's time that we set a new precedent, to tell our kids that we are positive adults."
Yeah, positively brick stupid. At least the article found an intelligent Texan to opine on the issue:
David Sabrio, a professor of English at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, noted that the Oxford English Dictionary says "hello" stems from an old German greeting for hailing a boat.
"Linguistically and historically, the word 'hello' has no connection at all with what we associate with the underworld," he said. "People may make that connection in their own mind. I certainly don't."
One wonders what they are going to do about helicopters, and helpers. And Hell, why stop with Hell? What about all the other dirty words that fall within other nondirty words. I have the urge to saunter on down to Kleberg country, order me some cocktails and kumquats, then sit down for a good rerun of that old James Bond classic "Octopussy", or a golf match featuring Dick Trickle and announced by Dick Shaft.
And while we're having fun here, let's not overlook the fact that this move by the county commissioners is blatantly unconstitutional. Why don't they just answer the phone "Praise JAYzus!" and lay all their cards on the table.
More Idiocy from NOhM
The National Organization for [heterosexual] Marriage has another ridiculous ad out, this time claiming children will be horribly confused if gays are allowed to marry.
It seems as usual that it is NOhM that is confused. One child in the video says that Adam and Eve are old fashioned, implying that somehow if gay marriage is allowed, heterosexual marriage will decline. This is absurd, but sadly, pretty much down to the level we've expected from NOhM
It seems as usual that it is NOhM that is confused. One child in the video says that Adam and Eve are old fashioned, implying that somehow if gay marriage is allowed, heterosexual marriage will decline. This is absurd, but sadly, pretty much down to the level we've expected from NOhM
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Ben Shapiro Invents Anti-Science Liberals, Commentors Reveal the Reality
In a pathetic attempt at "I know what you are but what am I" journalism, Ben Shapiro over at Townhall tries to paint liberals as the ones at war with science instead of conservatives by basically making shit up (I know, what else is new), and making arguments that are comically self-defeating. And a funny thing happened along the way, which I'll get to in a moment.
First, the self-defeating arguments. Shapiro claims liberals ignore the science in three areas: sex education, abortion, and gender differences. On sex education, he claims the science shows that "teens are biologically incapable of inhibiting risky behavior", which by his distorted logic means that we can't expect teens to use condoms, but we can expect them to abstain.
On abortion, Shapiro yammers on about the development of the fetus (cell differentiation in a matter of weeks, brain development within a couple of months), and somehow concludes that those who would allow abortions are less scientific than those who claim a fetus is a baby from the moment of conception, which isn't even a moment at all.
And finally, Shapiro invents out of whole cloth the idea that liberals "insist[] that men and women are identical, and that gender is merely a social construct, [and] that entirely false belief is the basis for the gay marriage movement". As usual, Shapiro gives no cite or backing of any kind for this claim, for the simple reason that he made it up, as usual. Even the most ardent liberal acknowledges that men and women have different naughty bits.
To be fair, sure, there are some people out there who believe what Shapiro describes, but they are nowhere near the mainstream of liberal thought. But if Shapiro had really wanted to talk about anti-science liberals, he had plenty of legitimate targets such as PETA, homeopaths, the genes-mean-nothing crowd, and some gun control advocates who play fast and loose with the data (didn't know suicides and rightful police shootings are included in "gun death" stats? You do now). Instead, in classic conservative style, he just made shit up for political purposes hoping no one would notice. Sorry Ben, we did.
However, the real laugh comes in the comments of his blog, where the creationists and global warming deniers come out of the woodwork in droves to demonstrate just how numerous and anti-science they really are. Even the most, ahem, liberal estimates would have these conservatives outnumbering anti-science liberals by an order of magnitude. Be sure to check it out, it is good for many laughs.
The crux of the issue is that the anti-science view so common among conservatives is not a random happenstance likely to be different in the future. It is a function of conservative philosophy, which discourages change, and values revelation, both concepts being antithetical to the hypothesize-experiment-revise method of science. Conservatives will always be more anti-science than liberals, even when they are right. It is inherent in their nature. They say things like "To say otherwise is counterintuitive and ridiculous - I don't care what study you cite". There's your anti-science attitude in a nutshell: my intuitions count more than your evidence.
Not in science they don't. In science, if the evidence is counter to one's intuitions (like it is in quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, heliocentrism, evolution, and many other areas), then its the evidence that must rule. If you can't handle that, it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, but it does mean you aren't being scientific. Until conservatives can learn to place evidence over revelation, intuition, and even reason, they will always be more anti-science than liberals, even when they happen to be right.
First, the self-defeating arguments. Shapiro claims liberals ignore the science in three areas: sex education, abortion, and gender differences. On sex education, he claims the science shows that "teens are biologically incapable of inhibiting risky behavior", which by his distorted logic means that we can't expect teens to use condoms, but we can expect them to abstain.
On abortion, Shapiro yammers on about the development of the fetus (cell differentiation in a matter of weeks, brain development within a couple of months), and somehow concludes that those who would allow abortions are less scientific than those who claim a fetus is a baby from the moment of conception, which isn't even a moment at all.
And finally, Shapiro invents out of whole cloth the idea that liberals "insist[] that men and women are identical, and that gender is merely a social construct, [and] that entirely false belief is the basis for the gay marriage movement". As usual, Shapiro gives no cite or backing of any kind for this claim, for the simple reason that he made it up, as usual. Even the most ardent liberal acknowledges that men and women have different naughty bits.
To be fair, sure, there are some people out there who believe what Shapiro describes, but they are nowhere near the mainstream of liberal thought. But if Shapiro had really wanted to talk about anti-science liberals, he had plenty of legitimate targets such as PETA, homeopaths, the genes-mean-nothing crowd, and some gun control advocates who play fast and loose with the data (didn't know suicides and rightful police shootings are included in "gun death" stats? You do now). Instead, in classic conservative style, he just made shit up for political purposes hoping no one would notice. Sorry Ben, we did.
However, the real laugh comes in the comments of his blog, where the creationists and global warming deniers come out of the woodwork in droves to demonstrate just how numerous and anti-science they really are. Even the most, ahem, liberal estimates would have these conservatives outnumbering anti-science liberals by an order of magnitude. Be sure to check it out, it is good for many laughs.
The crux of the issue is that the anti-science view so common among conservatives is not a random happenstance likely to be different in the future. It is a function of conservative philosophy, which discourages change, and values revelation, both concepts being antithetical to the hypothesize-experiment-revise method of science. Conservatives will always be more anti-science than liberals, even when they are right. It is inherent in their nature. They say things like "To say otherwise is counterintuitive and ridiculous - I don't care what study you cite". There's your anti-science attitude in a nutshell: my intuitions count more than your evidence.
Not in science they don't. In science, if the evidence is counter to one's intuitions (like it is in quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, heliocentrism, evolution, and many other areas), then its the evidence that must rule. If you can't handle that, it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, but it does mean you aren't being scientific. Until conservatives can learn to place evidence over revelation, intuition, and even reason, they will always be more anti-science than liberals, even when they happen to be right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
